Any work that touches on the institutional, social or economic history of this period almost inevitably touches on these questions. For the feudal context, M. Bloch, Feudal Society (ed. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961) and F. L. Ganshof, Feudalism (Longmans, Green, 1952) are important. For general studies of the factual context, the following are particularly revealing: R. Lennard, Rural England, 1086-1135 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1959); G. C. Homans, English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century (Harvard Univ.
Press, 1941); E. A. Kosminsky, Studies in the Agrarian History of England in the Thirteenth Century (Blackwell, 1956); Levett, Studies in Manorial History (Oxford Univ. Press, 1938); H. S. Bennett, Life on the English Manor (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1937). Tenurial und verwandte Studien aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln umfassen: Sir Frank Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism (Ford Lectures, 1929; Oxford Univ. Press, 2. Auflage, 1961); S.
Painter, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series 61, no. 3, 1943); D. C. Douglas, The Social Structure of Medieval East Anglia (Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, Bd. 9, Oxford Univ. Press, 1927); A. L. Poole, Obligations of Society (Oxford Univ. Press, 1946); N. Denholm-Joung, Seignorial Administration in England (Oxford Univ.
Press, 1937); H. M. Chew, Ecclesiastical Tenants in Chief and Knight-Service (Oxford Univ. Press, 1932); E. G. Kimball, Serjeanty Tenure in Medieval England (Yale Univ. Press, 1936); W. O. Ault, Private Jurisdiction in England (Yale Univ. Press, 1923).
Es gibt natürlich auch viele Studien über einzelne Herrschaften. Une étude récente sur la propriété foncière anglo-saxonne qui conteste les opinions reçues est E. John, Land Tenure in Early England (Leicester Univ. Press, 1964). For the early history of the Writ of Right itself, see Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill, ed. R. C. van Caenegem (Seld.
Soc., vol. 77 for 1958-1959), in particular pp. 206 ff. It is perhaps worth mentioning here that Professor van Caenegem is currently publishing a complete collection for the Selden Society to replace Bigelow`s Placita Anglo-Normannica; We will know more about these and many other things when this great task is accomplished. See also D. M. Stenton, English Justice (cited above), in particular pp. 26ff. On the Grand Assises and the Writ of Peace, see J. H. Round, «The Date of the Grand Assize,» English Historical Review, 31 (1916), 268; H. G.
Richardson, «Glanville Continued,» Law Quarterly Review, 54 (1938), p. 381, particularly pp. 384 ff.; H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, Law and Legislation (Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1966), pp. 110 et seq. On the nature of the difficulty on the praecipe of the ordinance, see N.
D. Hurnard, «Magna Carta, Clause 34,» in Studies in Medieval History Presented to F. M. Powicke (Oxford Univ. Press, 1948), p. 157; M. T. Clanchy, «Magna Carta, Clause Thirty-Four,» English Historical Review, 79 (1964), p. 542. On court formalities, see G. J.
Turner in Brevia Placitata (Seld. Soc., vol. 66 for 1947), pp. lxix et seq., lxxxv et seq.; S. F. C. Milsom in Novae Narrationes (Seld. Soc., vol. 80 for 1963), pp. xxxi ff.
The expression vestu e seysi appears in the precedents of Brevia Placitata. See also Casus Placitorum, ed. W. H. Dunham (Seld. Soc., vol. 69 for 1950), pp. 20/87; «Consuetudines Diversarum Curiarum» in Select Cases of Procedure without Writ, eds. H. G.
Richardson and G. O. Sayles (Seld. Soc., vol. 60 for 1941), pp. cxcv, on p. cc. If the sentence is indeed significant, Maitland may have been led to ignore it by one of his rare slips of the tongue, apparently a misinterpretation of his own work: in Vol. II, p. 33, No.
1, reference is made to a thief who was «clothed and confiscated» by stolen property; they are Bracton`s Note Book, p. 1539, and Curia Regis Rolls, vol. x, p. 105. This bibliography is limited to the area in which Pollock and Maitland remain the basis of studies, namely the beginnings of the common law. Even in this area, it is by no means exhaustive. Legal History on the Web provides an annotated overview of online legal history resources. The Journal of Legal History (Library Service Center & Periodicals), a British publication, and Law and History Review (Library Service Center & Periodicals), the journal of the American Society for Legal History, are two of the leading journals publishing articles on topics related to English legal history. The Legal History Blog hosts discussions on a variety of topics, including English legal history. First, the suggestion that the legislation whose assizes immediately emerged was «criminal» rather than «civil» was not generally accepted. Direct evidence is scarce but significant; and it is in line with the Glanvill report. Profession and literature (See also Ancient Laws and Law Books under original sources above).
Since the essay emphasizes the importance of what happened in the local courts, which have been so largely neglected since Maitland`s time, it is correct to draw attention to his own introduction to the court rolls of Bishop of Ely at Littleport in The Court Baron (Seld. Soc., vol. 4 for 1890), pp. 107 ff., especially pp. 115-118, to lead. He himself had no time to pursue the thoughts exposed therein; and it is possible that the posthumous release of The Forms of Action has something to obscure its own thinking by giving too definitive a form to an exercise in simplification. With regard to the treaty, the only general attempt to examine what has happened in the local courts is R. L. Henry, Contracts in the Local Courts of Medieval England (Longmans, Green, 1926).
Much valuable material can be found in the two volumes of Borough Customs, ed. Mary Bateson (Seld. Soc., vols. 18 for 1904 and 21 for 1906) and in the first volume of Select Cases Concerning the Law Merchant, ed. C. Gross (Seld. Soc., vol. 23 for 1908). The London documents in Calendar of Early Mayor`s Rolls of the City of London, 1298-1307, ed. A.
H. Thomas (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1924) and in the successive Calendars of Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London from 1323, with volumes for the years up to 1437 edited by A. H. Thomas, are particularly revealing. for subsequent years by P. E. Jones (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1926-1961). Primary law in the United Kingdom may take the following forms: B) The Writ of Mort d`Ancestor, Northampton, 1176 The Revised Reports (Frederick Pollock, ed., 1891-1917) (KD270 1785. R45) covers the years 1785-1866. Instead of reprinting the best version of a case, Pollock sometimes combined the versions and edited them to get what he believed to be the true opinion.
Although the revised reports generally duplicate the English reports, they contain a few additional cases. You must cite cases on English reports or revised reports, with a parallel citation to the designated rapporteur (Bluebook, T.2). After the British colonial period, jurisdictions that had inherited and adopted English common law developed their last courts of appeal in different ways: jurisdictions that were still under the British Crown were subordinate to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. [b] For a long time, the British Dominions used the Privy Council in London as their court of last resort, although they eventually gradually established their local Supreme Court. New Zealand was the last dominion to abandon the Privy Council and establish its own Supreme Court in 2004. [c] Even after independence, many former British Commonwealth colonies continued to use the Privy Council as it provided a high-quality service that was easily accessible. In particular, several Caribbean island states have found the Privy Council advantageous. Individual notices of registration attracted attention, usually at a later date; And he tried to see how «degrees» worked in practice. See S.
F. C. Milsom in Novae Narrationes (cited above), pp. cxxxii et seq. On the relationship between documents and judicial decisions in the thirteenth century, see G. J. Turner in Brevia Placitata (already cited), pp. lxxvii ff. On the initial location of the notices of registration in relation to other appeals, see D.M. Stenton, English Justice (supra), at p. 50 et seq.; N.
D. Hurnard, «Did Edward I Reverse Henry II`s Policy upon Seisin?», op. cit. cit., p. 529. The Cambrian Law Review (1970-2003; (v.1-v.34) & Library Service Centre; 2004- (v.35-) Periodicals & on HeinOnline) regularly publishes a «Bibliography on British and Irish Legal History». This research guide is an introduction to basic legal documents in printed and electronic form for the historical study of English law. If you are researching modern English law, read the English Law Research Guide.
Fourth, and most persistent, are the conceptual problems. All agree that the Roman ideas of dominium et possessio do not correspond to English facts; and indeed, these ideas may have been too sincerely attributed to Maitland. Even the English «law» developed, although it is difficult to deny it some of the characteristics of «property», differs from the dominium in obvious and important aspects and can only be defined in relation to seisin. Moreover, it is not easy to see how far the consensus goes. Most authors believe that the introduction of the assizes was responsible for a contrast between the law and seizure, for which the language of possession was not entirely inappropriate; And that this, the purely factual content of an assize judgment and the use of the Roman language came together to transform the seisin into something like possessio. They believe that the difficulties arose from a confusion between this and an earlier feeling of seisin, which was an undifferentiated «seisin right». But the nature of this earlier concept is not entirely clear. If there is a right and the possibility of litigation, there must be ways to describe the position of the person who has the object and the person who believes that he or she has a better right to it. And if, for example, the Reseisin orders could envisage an a posteriori decision on claims, it is difficult to believe that a distinction such as that between seizure and the law has not been understood. It is at this stage that Professor van Caenegem departs from the opinion, which he usually maintains, that the starting point was a single idea.