Editing Due process (section)

=== Magna Carta ===
In clause 39 of [[Magna Carta]], issued in 1215, [[John of England]] promised: "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 judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."<ref name="Magna">{{Cite web|work=Internet History Sourcebooks Project|url=https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/magnacarta.asp|access-date=2023-02-12
| title= The Text of the Magna Carta
| orig-date= 1215 | date= 1995
| editor1= G.R.C. Davis
|via=Fordham University}}</ref> Magna Carta itself immediately became part of the "[[law of the land]]", and Clause 61 of that charter authorized an elected body of 25 barons to determine by majority vote what redress the King must provide when the King offends "in any respect against any man".<ref name="Magna" /> Thus, Magna Carta established the [[rule of law]] in England by not only requiring the monarchy to obey the law of the land but also limiting how the monarchy could change the law of the land. However, in the 13th century, the provisions may have been referring only to the rights of landowners, and not to ordinary peasantry or villagers.<ref>{{cite book |last=McKechnie |first=William Sharp |title=Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John |publisher=Robert MacLehose and Co., Ltd. |year=1905 |location=Glasgow |pages=[https://archive.org/details/magnacartaacomme00mcke/page/n153 136]–37 |url=https://archive.org/details/magnacartaacomme00mcke}}: "The question must be considered an open one; but much might be said in favor of the opinion that 'freeman' as used in the Charter is synonymous with 'freeholder'...."</ref>

Shorter versions of Magna Carta were subsequently issued by British [[monarchs]], and Clause 39 of Magna Carta was renumbered "29".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents|title=Featured Documents|date=2015-10-06|website=National Archives|language=en|access-date=2020-03-28}}</ref> The phrase ''due process of law'' first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna Carta in 1354 during the reign of [[Edward III of England]], as follows: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."<ref>[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3/28/3 28 Edw. 3, c. 3] (1354).</ref>

In 1608, the English jurist [[Edward Coke]] wrote a treatise in which he discussed the meaning of Magna Carta. Coke explained that no man shall be deprived but by ''legem terrae'', the law of the land, "that is, by the common law, statute law, or custom of England.... (that is, to speak it once and for all) by the due course, and process of law.."<ref>[http://www.constitution.org/18th/coke2nd1797/coke2nd1797_051-100.pdf 2 ''Institutes of the Laws of England'' 46 (1608)]</ref>

Both the clause in Magna Carta and the later statute of 1354 were again explained in 1704 (during the reign of [[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne]]) by the [[Court of King's Bench (England)|Queen's Bench]], in the case of ''Regina v. Paty''.<ref name="paty">{{Cite book
| chapter = ''Regina v. Paty'', 92 Eng. Rep. 232, 234 (1704) 
|editor1= John Bayley | volume= 2|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SA4wAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1108|title=Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas: In the Reigns of the Late King William, Queen Anne, King George the First, and King George the Second. &#91;1694-1732&#93;|last=((Raymond, Baron Raymond))|first=Robert|date=1792|publisher=E. Lynch|pages=1105–1108}}</ref> In that case, the [[British House of Commons]] had deprived John Paty and certain other citizens of the right to vote in an election and committed them to [[Newgate Prison]] merely for the offense of pursuing a legal action in the courts.<ref>{{Cite book | title= A Student's Manual of English Constitutional History | edition = 3rd | last = Medley | first = Dudley Julius | date = 1902 | publisher= B. Blackwell | page= 613
| url= https://books.google.com/books?id=uHZDAAAAIAAJ | chapter= Abbey ''v'' White (1704)
}}</ref> The Queen's Bench, in an opinion by [[Littleton Powys|Justice Littleton Powys]], explained the meaning of "due process of law" as follows:
{{Quote|[I]t is objected, that by Mag. Chart. c. 29, no man ought to be taken or imprisoned, but by the law of the land. But to this I answer, that lex terrae is not confined to the common law, but takes in all the other laws, which are in force in this realm; as the civil and canon law.... By the 28 Ed. 3, c. 3, there the words lex terrae, which are used in Mag. Char. are explained by the words, due process of law; and the meaning of the statute is, that all commitments must be by a legal authority; and the law of Parliament is as much a law as any, nay, if there be any superiority this is a superior law.<ref name="paty" />}}

[[John Holt (judge)|Chief Justice Holt]] dissented in this case because he believed that the commitment had not in fact been by a legal authority. The House of Commons had purported to legislate unilaterally, without approval of the [[British House of Lords]], ostensibly to regulate the election of its members.<ref>{{Cite book | pages= 51–56 | chapter= Sir John Holt | editor1-last = Cunningham| editor1-first = George Godfrey | volume= 4 | title= Lives of Eminent and Illustrious Englishmen | date= 1835
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=cysAAAAAQAAJ
}}</ref>{{rp|54}} Although the Queen's Bench held that the House of Commons had not infringed or overturned due process, John Paty was ultimately freed by Queen Anne when she [[legislative session#Procedure in Commonwealth realms|prorogued]] Parliament.