The Englishry of the English law owes a great deal to the diverse traditions that contributed to its structure and substance. The medieval English law is in large part a product of the marriage of the Anglo-Saxon legal system, based in intensely local tradition and collective responsibility, and the expanding machinery of Norman central governance. The imposition of a Norman administrative super-structure in the aftermath of the Conquest created a truly national legal system that continued to evolve and grow throughout the period. Despite this expansion of national power, the system preserved instruments of local control and community decision making. The combination of these two traditions formed the basis for that most English of institutions: the common law. This inquiry demands a definition of Englishry, or what makes the common law system historically distinct. Using broad strokes, this quality of the system can be defined as the flexibility derived from its case-driven nature, encompassing both the absence of a comprehensive civil code and the centrality of judicial decisions and a significant degree of community involvement, either through compurgation or trial-by-jury.

The Foundation: Anglo Saxon Localism and Norman Administration

The various sources of the English law laid the foundation for legal system and enabled its later development and growth. The primary substantive source for the English law is the Anglo-Saxon law before the Conquest. It was influenced by several Germanic legal traditions and was by no means uniform across the entire country. Its concerns were intensely local, and it was underpinned by notions of collective responsibility and community justice. Though records are sparse, compurgation seems to have played a significant role is the decision of cases. The Normans brought two particularly significant innovations to the English legal system. The first of which was the development of a more robust royal administration, epitomized by projects like the Domesday Book, that allowed for the development of a truly national legal system and more efficient taxation. The second was the imposition of feudal tenure, a radically new system of land ownership. This combination of the Anglo-Saxon focus on local custom and community participation with Norman central governance and the military tenures provided the foundation of the English law, allowing for its later development and growth. The consolidation and expansion of royal authority and administration in the centuries following the Conquest led to the development of a national court system that governed the entire realm and developed new jurisdictions, causes of action, and novel uses of fictions to fit the legal needs of their times. The latter half of the 12th century saw dramatic increase in both royal power and the reach of national courts. Not only did royal justice begin to travel independently from the physical person of the king with the development of the eyres and later the assizes, but the judicial functions of the curia regis were functionally shifted to permanent courts with the creation of the Exchequer of Pleas, the Court of Common Pleas, and later the King’s Bench. The reign of Henry II saw the development and subsequent judicial use of novel disseisin and mort d’ancestor to ameliorate the abuses of the Anarchy. Later times saw the Chancery develop to remedy the perceived rigidity of the common law.

Procedural Innovations Within Royal System

Once established, these courts adopted new procedures that drove the law forward to meet the legal needs of contemporary society. This was occasionally done in novel ways. The Exchequer and King’s Bench greatly expanded their own respective jurisdictions with the Writ of Quominus and the Bill of Middlesex. In the 14th century, the common law courts drove the development of early tort law by expansively interpreting the vi et armis component of the writ of trespass as was done in Rattesdene v, Grunestone (YB 10 Edw II (54 SS) 140) and later doing away with the need for an allegation of force with the emergence of trespass on the case. A similar process is seen in the King’s Bench with development and affirmation of the use of assumpsit, much to the benefit of plaintiffs and the legal profession. Slade’s case Trin. 44 Eliz. 4 Co Rep 92b. The centrality of judicial action to substantive legal development and the national scope of these royal courts are part and parcel are part and parcel of the English law. They were created by the creation of Norman administrative state and evolved to the need to meet social, political, and economic needs of the day.

Local Participation

Despite the prominence of the royal courts in creation and development of a national legal system, the localism at the core of Anglo-Saxon law remained a defining aspect of the common law throughout the medieval period. Compurgation, or oath-helping through a combination of eyewitness accounts and character references, remained a key feature of litigation in the immediate aftermath of the Conquest. During the reign of Henry II, local participation grew into a more formal institution through the development of the jury. This took the form of the presenting jury of the grand assize and the also self-informing trial jury. The abolition of the ordeal by the Lateran Council of 1215 further encouraged the adoption of the jury trial. This right was later ensconced in the Magna Carta, securing community involvement through jury trial in a criminal proceeding as a fundamental right in the English constitutional system.

Conclusion

Though this essay speaks in broad terms and excludes many important themes, it seeks to establish that the diverse sources of the English law provided an essential foundation and account for the development of the common law’s defining characteristics. The institutions of the Norman state created a truly national legal system, and the institutional responses to contemporary social pressures through the years gave the common law much of its substance. Although the medieval English law operated within the confines of a national system, it remained an intensely local affair, with the jury in all its forms epitomizing the continued importance of the Anglo-Saxon tradition of localism and community involvement to the development of the common law.

Post Script: Despite what the heading reads, this is the evised 1st Paper. Reframed the question and moved away from constitutional questions.