[MUSIC]Some of the representations of Free-born John.>> Yes.>> Through to the 18th century.You're eventually being shackledby a tyrannical government.>> Yes.>> Magna Carta's in shreds on the floor.>> Yes.>> The lips are enclosed by padlocks.>> Yes, yes.>> Clearlythere's incredible emotiveforce behind those things.And you imagine the audience,whether they're high orlow, think my Magna Carta's on the walland I'm going to sort of obey it.>> That's right.>> It's, it's quite, quite odd.I mean whether, you know,the contemporary world really thinks ofthat document remains to be seen I think.You know, there's a lot ofinteresting iconography going on.You know,Magna Carta is a form of pest repellent.>> [LAUGH]>> That should be sprayed onthe House of Commons to remove corruption.>> Yes.>> Is a re-imagining of that tradition.>> Yes.>> That somehow Magna Carta representsliberty and justice.>> Yes.>> Nothing to do withthe original text at all.>> That's right, yes.>> But it's symbolism that'scoming through to us.>> Yes, yes.>> AndI think a lot of the workwas done in the 17th and18th century is wherethey're drawing from.>> Yes.>> You know they can see these traditions.>> Yes, yes.>> And so, it's interesting as a historianof ideas, you know, these are emotional.>> Yes, that's right.>> Connections,rather than conceptual connections.>> I think one has to be carefulabout fetishising these documents andthe rights that they enshrine.because, of course, in the endgovernments will do what they want.And and there's a way in which they canuse these documents as a kind of mask forwhat is in fact illegitimate action.And of course,the other thing to say is that in the end,law always has to beinterpreted by human beings.That in the end there always has to bethe discretion of judges or politicians.And of course,it's in that space of discretion andof hermeneutics of interpretation,that all riots can, can come exactly.So, thinking about the various waysin which it is used in the 1650s,of course it's not, it's not always by theradicals that it's sometimes disdained.Of course, very famously andpoetically it is disdained by OliverCromwell who describes it as Magna Farta.>> Yes.>> And, and, there's this notion why he,why should I be controlled,he says, by Magna Farta?As far as hes concernedhe is doing Gods work.He, he is the sort of mouth piece for,for the Lord.Hes won this battle providentially, andhe has no need forthese corrupt legal niceties.So, so, so there's a kind of a,there's, there's a a disdain forMagna Carta coming both fromthe Diggers and from Cromwell.>> Authority.>> And from authority.>> Yeah.>> Exactly.>> Brilliant, brilliant.So, so we get,certainly in the 1640s and '50s andthen perhaps in, in your lovely word,an ossification in the Restoration andafterwards of these principles of lives,liberties, and estates.You know, an ancient constitution thatfundamentally protects the property.>> Yes.>> Of free-born middling sorts.>> Yes.>> How, how does the feed into the sortof later crises of the 17th century?>> So, Magna Carta is is sort of part of,is drawn into the grand Whig story ofhistory which says that the Bill of Rightsof 1689 is a reaffirmation ofthe principles of Magna Carta which itselfis a reaffirmation of the fundamentallaw in the ancient constitution.But what's interesting in a sense is thatthe real revolutionary moment of the 1680sdoesn't really happen in 1689, whichis a sort of seamless transfer, really.You know, out flees James, in sailsWilliam without any trouble at all.The really revolutionary moment inthat decade comes much earlier.When the Whigs, as they later to be calledfight to exclude James from the throne.And they fight against what they seeas the tyranny of Charles the Second.And there, of course, the languagethat they draw, and it's not somuch the ancient constitutional languagebut again the language of natural rights.The notion of there being a contract,a trust between people andmonarch that's been broken.>> Yeah.And I think that, you know,there are small elements in,in some of the Whig propaganda.>> Yes.>> Who simply rehearse some ofCoke's commentary.And I think that's one of the traditionswe see through to the 18th century.You can take the so-calledgolden passages of Cook.>> Yes.Clause 29 the freeman shall not be andpretty much weave in anything youlike including that natural right.>> That's right, that's right.And I suppose and, and rather thanin a way see them using kind ofMagna Carta in instrumental way,as perhaps you've sort of implied.Maybe a, a kind of fairer wayof putting it would be that,that these are just simply notdistinct traditions for them.>> Mm-hm.>> That they are, that they're,that there's this fundamental law thatall kind of radical, orrevolutionary theories are drawing on.Which is that, that salus populi supremalex, suprema lex, the safety of the peopleis the supreme law and, and that youfind invoked by everyone of the time.Even Thomas Hobbs.[LAUGH].>> Yes, yes, yes.