The _Magna Carta_ (in my understanding) reflected a dispute between KIng & Nobles over division of the plunder -- hardly the landmark in human freedom it is touted to be. I suppose now the "real" Magna Carta that exists in living brains can be seen to be such a landmark.
Carrol
---------------
While in general this might be, the relevant section reads:
[29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
This was an oblique referrence to writs of habaes corpus which were already an existing form of petition. Nevertheless, it does stipulate no freeman. So there you have it. Obviously it is no landmark by modern standards, yet it is a landmark by current US standards of justice.
I had the date wrong, since it was affirmed by Edward I, in 1297. The translation is at:
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/magnacarta/magtrans.html
Chuck Grimes