“Two British academics discovered that a ‘copy’ of Magna Carta, held in Harvard Law School’s library for 80 years, is one of seven originals dating from 1300,” reports the New York Times. “Harvard Law paid $27 for a copy of Magna Carta. Surprise! It’s an original”:
Bought for $27.50 after World War II, the faint, water stained manuscript in the library of Harvard Law School had attracted relatively little attention since it arrived there in 1946. That is about to change.
Two British academics, one of whom happened on the manuscript by chance, have discovered that it is an original 1300 version — not a copy, as long thought — of Magna Carta, the medieval document that helped establish some of the world’s most cherished liberties.
It is one of just seven such documents from that date still in existence.
“I never in all my life expected to discover a Magna Carta,” said David Carpenter, a professor of medieval history at King’s College London, describing the moment in December 2023 when he made the startling find.
The manuscript’s value is hard to estimate, although it is fair to say that its price tag of under $30 (about $500 today) must make it one of the bargains of the last century. A 710-year-old version of Magna Carta was sold in 2007 for $21.3 million.
$21.3 million in 2007 was worth more than $33 million today. So the original of the Magna Carta held by Harvard Law School could be worth over $30 million.
In some ways, the Magna Carta was more protective of property rights than current American law. As a retired lawyer noted:
Protections for private property have waned. The Magna Carta recognized back in the 13th century that property rights extend beyond land, by specifically protecting people’s personal property, such as their “corn.” But federal judges have often ruled that the Constitution’s Takings Clause affords less protection to personal than to real property, even though the text of the Takings Clause doesn’t distinguish between personal property and real property. It says that “private property [shall not be] taken for public use, without just compensation.” Indeed, one of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause was to curb armies from taking private property to supply soldiers during wars. Personal property, such as food and clothing, were the primary targets of such seizures.
Protections against double jeopardy have waned even more. Such protections were found not only in English common law, but also ancient Jewish law and early Greek and Roman law. But the Supreme Court has gutted such protections, which are found in the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It provides: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The Supreme Court has disregarded such categorical language by creating a “dual sovereignty” loophole that allows people to be retried in federal court for essentially the same offense they were found not guilty of in state court.
