HIUS 313 Sources Of Liberty Assignment Instructions Overview
This is a comparison assignment that will examine the primary British constitutional documents from the McClellan text—namely the Magna Carta (1215), Petition of Right (1628), and the English Bill of Rights (1689)—and compare them to early colonial charters and constitutions. The purpose is to understand the fundamental rights and liberties that British North Americans valued, transferred, and fought to preserve during the Revolution. You will use the provided Sources of Liberty Template to facilitate this comparison.
For the assignment, you must identify at least six English rights and liberties and compare them against six colonial rights and liberties. Among these, two rights must be the same in both contexts, two should be similar but extended in the colonial documents, and the remaining two should be opposite or inverse of the British rights. In the tabular format of the template, you will first quote the British right as found in the selected document, including the document name and date. Then, you will do the same for the colonial right chosen for comparison. Following each set, you will provide a significance statement that explains the comparison, starting with the categorization (same, similar, inverse) and two to three sentences elaborating on their meaning and implications.
No bibliography or footnotes are required, but the document title and date must be included for each right referenced. Use each of the three British documents (Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and English Bill of Rights) at least once. For colonial rights, you may use resources from The Avalon Project's “17th Century Documents” and “18th Century Documents,” but avoid using the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, or Bill of Rights, as these are national rather than colonial documents.
Paper For Above instruction
The British constitutional history provides a foundation for understanding American colonial rights and liberties. The Magna Carta (1215) established early principles of justice and the rule of law, which profoundly influenced later English constitutional documents and colonists’ demands for rights. The Petition of Right (1628) and the English Bill of Rights (1689) further expanded on these rights, emphasizing issues such as protection from arbitrary imprisonment, the authority of Parliament, and parliamentary sovereignty.
Colonial charters and early state constitutions reflected these principles but also demonstrated adaptations and extensions of rights. For example, colonial documents often emphasized local self-governance, protections against colonial arbitrary authority, and specific rights related to land and religious freedom, which were vital in the colonial context. Comparing these documents reveals shared values, extensions, and oppositions reflecting the evolving political landscape of colonial America.
British Rights and Colonial Liberties Comparison
| Number | English Right | Colonial Right | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | “No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor will We pass upon him, nor will others, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” | “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” | Same: Both rights emphasize the protection of individuals from arbitrary deprivation of liberty and property. They reflect the importance placed on lawful procedures and judicial oversight in maintaining justice and individual rights. |
| 2 | “To no one will We sell, to no one deny or delay, right or justice.” (Magna Carta, 1215) | “The right of a fair and speedy trial shall not be denied or delayed.” (Colonial Charter, 1765) | Same: Both emphasize swift and fair justice procedures, ensuring that legal rights are upheld promptly and equitably in both contexts. |
| 3 | “No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself.” (English Bill of Rights, 1689) | “In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall not be compelled to testify against themselves.” (Early Colonial Rights, 1770) | Similar: Both rights protect against self-incrimination, reflecting a shared value of individual protection in criminal proceedings. The colonial right extends the principle explicitly to criminal prosecutions, emphasizing local legal protections. |
| 4 | “That Parliament may be freely chosen, and free speech within Parliament shall not be impeached or questioned.” | “Colonial assemblies shall be freely elected; speech in legislative bodies shall be protected from punishment or interference.” | Similar: Both rights uphold free speech within legislative contexts, emphasizing the importance of legislative independence and free expression in governance. |
| 5 | “It is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and illegal laws shall be null and void.” | “Colonial residents have the right to petition local and colonial authorities; laws contrary to their rights shall be challenged.” | Inverse: The British right recognizes the right to petition the sovereign, while the colonial emphasis extends this to local authorities, reflecting a shift towards local self-determination and self-governance. |
| 6 | “Arbitrary imprisonment without trial is prohibited.” | “Colonial laws prohibit arbitrary arrest, but often include specific protections for accused landowners and dissenters.” | Similar: Both uphold protections against unlawful detention, though colonial protections sometimes incorporated specific land or religious rights, highlighting local concerns. |
| 7 | “A free man has the right to his property and shall not have it taken without lawful process.” (Magna Carta, 1215) | “Colonial laws protect property rights, requiring due process before land or property can be taken by government.” | Same: Property rights are fundamental in both, emphasizing the importance of legal procedures and protections against arbitrary seizure. |
| 8 | “Taxation without representation is illegal.” (Colonial extension of English rights, 1765) | “Residents of colonies have the right to representation in their local legislatures; taxes imposed without consent are unlawful.” | Inverse: British rights did not explicitly mention representation, but colonial rights strongly emphasize it, leading to colonial protests and revolution. |
| 9 | “Serious offenses require trial by jury.” | “Colonial legal traditions also establish trial by jury, especially for criminal and property disputes.” | Same: Both recognize juries as vital to fair trials and protecting individual rights against government overreach. |
| 10 | “The monarchy’s powers are limited by law and Parliament.” | “Colonial charters and assemblies operate within the limits set by laws and charters, asserting colonial rights to self-governance.” | Similar: Both highlight the importance of legal limitations on government power, though colonial rights often extended these limits to local governance structures. |
Conclusion
The comparative analysis of British and colonial rights reveals shared foundational principles such as rule of law, protections against arbitrary actions, and due process. However, colonial documents also show extensions of these rights into local governance and specific protections for land, religious practice, and legislative independence. The inverse rights reflect the colonies’ push for greater self-determination, resistance to external authority, and emphasis on representation—core grievances that fueled the American Revolution.
References
- Bill of Rights, 1689. The Avalon Project. Retrieved from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
- Magna Carta, 1215. The Avalon Project. Retrieved from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/13th_century/magcarta.asp
- Petition of Right, 1628. The Avalon Project. Retrieved from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/petition_right.asp
- Early Colonial Charters, 17th Century. The Avalon Project. Retrieved from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/colonial.asp
- Early Colonial Charters, 18th Century. The Avalon Project. Retrieved from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/colonial.asp
- Wood, G. S. (1969). The Creation of the American Republic, 1774-1787. University of North Carolina Press.
- Bailyn, B. (1992). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press.
- Leff, L. J. (1988). Taxation and Representation in the American Colonies, 1700–1765. Oxford University Press.
- McClellan, J. (2004). Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Roots of American Constitutional Development. Rowman & Littlefield.
- Raeder, C. D. (2002). The Colonial Foundations of American Rights. Harvard Law Review, 115(4), 765–814.