Welcome Month 06

Civil democracy documents are precious people intention. Read and then cocreate AHpoem for ones own benefit; thinkdo. I offer my monthly document effort to encourage your own.

 

AHpoem. KennedyPeaceSpeech

“I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war MAKES NO SENSE  .1.  IN AN AGE WHEN great powers can maintain large invulnerable nuclear .2. forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. .3.  IT MAKES NO SENSE IN AN AGE WHEN a single nuclear weapon  .4.  contains almost 10times the explosive force delivered by all the  .5.  allied air forces in ww2. IT MAKES NO SENSE IN AN AGE WHEN  .6.  the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be  .7.  carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of  .8.  the globe and to generations yet unborn. I speak of peace, therefore,  .9.   as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize  .10.  that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of  .11.  war — and frequently the words of the pursuer  .12.  fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent tasks…”     *”So let us persevere…”*

SummerStateSCivillife equality w/RooseveltUNintent …  includes two major USA democracy documents  britKennedyPeaceSpeech(06.10.1963)

and

Medieval brit-english-anglo MagnaCharta (06.15.1215) is foundational; Barons at Runneymede meet their king/Priest rule in resistance and achievement; now taxes go to taxpayers to make their general welfare better. Yeah. This brit thought grows in Washington who joins it to Hamilton Carribean credit to make “aceStateS”, AmericaCreditEconomy , that inspires Chinese Belt and Road Initiative with Xi thru USA teacher LaRouche.

 

 

Democracy Document KennedyPeaceSpeech, following his  CubanMissileCrisis work, expands SummerStateSCivil, RooseveltUNintention.

President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
June 10, 1963

President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst’s enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and the conduct of the public’s business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation’s thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

“There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university,” wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities–and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was “a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see.”

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived–yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children–not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles–which can only destroy and never create–is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war–and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament–and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude–as individuals and as a Nation–for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward–by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable–that mankind is doomed–that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade–therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable–and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace– based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions–on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace–no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process–a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor–it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims–such as the allegation that “American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars.”

Truly, as it was written long ago: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements–to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning–a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements–in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland–a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again–no matter how–our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation’s closest allies–our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours–and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences–but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America’s weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people–but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system–a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others–by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.

Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope– and the purpose of allied policies–to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law–a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other’s actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament– designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920’s. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort–to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security–it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history–but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives–as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government–local, State, and National–to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.

All this is not unrelated to world peace. “When a man’s ways please the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us, “he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights–the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation–the right to breathe air as nature provided it–the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can–if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers–offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough–more than enough–of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on–not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

.

.

.

6.15.1215 , Magna Carta is born that becomes the cornerstone of anglo-English-british contribution to summerStateS independency. It says the taxes are to be used for the needs of the taxpayers. Medieval, this idea is indeed new because up to this time all wealth went to Kings/HighPriest.

democracy document brit Magna Charta, 1215
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and
Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons,
justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects,
Greeting.
KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and
heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering
of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of
Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry
archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin
bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester,
William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon
and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the
Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William
earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin
Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville,
Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley,
John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:
(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have
confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and
shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to
be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the
present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the
freedom of the Church’s elections -­‐ a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and
importance to it -­‐ and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we
shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in
perpetuity.
TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for
ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of
us and our heirs:
(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military
service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief’, the heir
shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief’. That is to say, the
heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl’s barony, the heir or heirs of a
knight l00s. at most for the entire knight’s `fee’, and any man that owes less shall pay
less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees’
(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he
shall have his inheritance without `relief’ or fine.
 
 

(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only
reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without
destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the
land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits
destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be
entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee’, who shall be answerable to
us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given
or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage,
he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and
prudent men of the same `fee’, who shall be similarly answerable to us.
(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses,
parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the
revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land
to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season
demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.
(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before
a marriage takes place, it shall be’ made known to the heir’s next-­‐of-­‐kin.
(7) At her husband’s death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at
once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any
inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may
remain in her husband’s house for forty days after his death, and within this period her
dower shall be assigned to her.
(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a
husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she
holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may
hold them of.
(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long
as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor’s sureties
shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for
lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be
answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor’s lands and rents until they
have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can
show that he has settled his obligations to them.
(10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has
been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under
age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the
Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.
(11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing

 
 

towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also
be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to
be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to
persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.
(12) No `scutage’ or `aid’ may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent,
unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to
marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid’ may be levied.
`Aids’ from the city of London are to be treated similarly.
(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land
and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports
shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.
(14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an `aid’ -­‐ except in
the three cases specified above -­‐ or a `scutage’, we will cause the archbishops, bishops,
abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who
hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the
sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days
notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the
summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for
the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not
all those who were summoned have appeared.
(15) In future we will allow no one to levy an `aid’ from his free men, except to ransom
his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For
these purposes only a reasonable `aid’ may be levied.
(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight’s `fee’, or other free
holding of land, than is due from it.
(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed
place.
(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d’ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken
only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief
justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with
four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the
county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.
(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and
freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as
will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to
be done.

 
 

(20) 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. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a
husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal
court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of
reputable men of the neighbourhood.
(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity
of their offence.
(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed
upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.
(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an
ancient obligation to do so.
(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that
should be held by the royal justices.
(25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent,
without increase, except the royal demesne manors.
(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay `fee’ of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official
produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful
for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay `fee’ of the dead man to the
value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole
debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead
man s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the
property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.
(27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-­‐of-­‐
kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be
preserved.
(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any
man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of
this.
(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-­‐guard if the knight is
willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some
other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from
castle-­‐guard for the period of this servlce.
(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport
from any free man, without his consent.

 
 

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other
purpose, without the consent of the owner.
(32) 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.
(33) All fish-­‐weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the
whole of England, except on the sea coast.
(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any
holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own
lord’s court.
(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter),
throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and
haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised
similarly.
(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of
life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.
(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by `fee-­‐farm’, `socage’, or `burgage’, and also
holds land of someone else for knight’s service, we will not have guardianship of his
heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person’s `fee’, by virtue of the `fee-­‐farm’,
`socage’, or `burgage’, unless the `fee-­‐farm’ owes knight’s service. We will not have the
guardianship of a man’s heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any
small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.
(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement,
without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions,
or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed
with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his
equals or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or
travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in
accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of
war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in
our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or
property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are
being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be
safe too.

 
 

(42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom
unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in
time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that
have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from
a country that is at war with us, and merchants -­‐ who shall be dealt with as stated above
-­‐ are excepted from this provision.
(43) If a man holds lands of any `escheat’ such as the `honour’ of Wallingford,
Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other `escheats’ in our hand that are baronies,
at his death his heir shall give us only the `relief’ and service that he would have made to
the baron, had the barony been in the baron’s hand. We will hold the `escheat’ in the
same manner as the baron held it.
(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal
justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved
in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.
(45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that
know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.
(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient
tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is
their due.
(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-­‐
banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.
(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and
their servants, or river-­‐banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every
county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the
evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice
if we are not in England, are first to be informed.
(49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as
security for peace or for loyal service.
(50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, and
in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de
Cigogné’, Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny
and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their
followers.
(51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign
knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its
harm, with horses and arms.

 
 

(52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or
rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In
cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-­‐five
barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61). In cases, however,
where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement
of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our
hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period
commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had
been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the
Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.
(53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are
to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first a-­‐orested by our father
Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person’s `fee’,
when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a `fee’ held of us for knight’s service by a
third party; and with abbeys founded in another person’s `fee’, in which the lord of the
`fee’ claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will
at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.
(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of
any person except her husband.
(55) All fines that have been given to us unjustiy and against the law of the land, and all
fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by
a majority judgement of the twenty-­‐five barons referred to below in the clause for
securing the peace (§ 61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be
present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be
present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-­‐five
barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgement shall be set aside, and
someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by
the rest of the twenty-­‐five.
(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything
else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at
once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches
by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh
law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh
shall treat us and ours in the same way.
(57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the
lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard,
and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have
respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun,
or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But
on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice

 
 

according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.
(58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters
delivered to us as security for the peace.
(59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland,
his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of
England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William,
formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be
resolved by the judgement of his equals in our court.
(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our
kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our
kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their
own men.
(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our
kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since
we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we
give and grant to the barons the following security:
The barons shall elect twenty-­‐five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed
with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this
charter.
If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against
any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the
offence is made known to four of the said twenty-­‐five barons, they shall come to us -­‐ or
in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice -­‐ to declare it and claim immediate
redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty
days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the
four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-­‐five barons, who may
distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole
community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving
only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured
such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then
resume their normal obedience to us.
Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-­‐five
barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the
utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man
who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will
compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.
If-­‐one of the twenty-­‐five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other
way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his
place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.
In the event of disagreement among the twenty-­‐five barons on any matter referred to

them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a
unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-­‐five, whether these were all present or some of
those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.
The twenty-­‐five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall
cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.
We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third
party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or
diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no
time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.
(62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-­‐will, hurt, or grudges that
have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning
of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also
pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said
dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration
of peace.
In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to
this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop
of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master
Pandulf.
(63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be
free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and
concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of
us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.
Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and
without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.
Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and
Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the
new regnal year began on 28 May).

 
 
Scroll to Top