Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066, there was no unified national legal system. Prior to 1066, the English legal system included a variety of oral customary rules that varied by region. The law of the Jutes in southern England, for example, was different from that of the Mercians in the centre of the country (see map below). Each district has its own local court, which gives its own jurisdiction in accordance with local customs, which vary from municipality to municipality and are often applied arbitrarily. For example, courts typically consisted of informal public meetings that evaluated conflicting claims in a case and, if they could not make a decision, could require an accused to prove guilt or innocence by carrying an iron or tearing a stone from a cauldron of boiling water or some other «test» of truthfulness. If the accused`s wound healed within a prescribed time, he was released as innocent; If this is not the case, execution usually follows. Henry II`s reforms concerning land law protected the tenants of their masters by allowing them to turn to the lord`s superior, the king. One group of tenants did not have this option, tenants who held directly from the king. Their discontent is reflected in the different attitudes towards the law shown in King John`s Magna Carta in 1215. Admittedly, some clauses show the popularity of the new procedures, for example, they promise the frequent establishment of foundations such as the new dissemination. Others, however, have protested the abuse of royal law, for example, the delay or sale of justice, a problem that seems to reflect the huge sums sometimes demanded from major tenants. They demanded that the law be applied equally to all free peoples.

Whatever one thinks of the unpredictable Henry, there is one achievement of his thirty-five years of reign that stands out from all others: his reform of the English legal system, which laid the foundations of English common law. When he ascended the throne in 1154 at the age of only twenty-one, his empire was in deep disarray after the civil war. He desperately needed to restore royal authority and establish order, and he did so with his usual relentless effort. The judicial system received much of his attention, and he was aided by the talented Becket, who was his chancellor at the time. Unlike continental civil law, the English system does not derive from a particular set of texts, but from what has been called «tradition expressed in action». It began as customary law used at the king`s court to settle disputes and conflicts that directly affected the monarch. At first, this included only the most serious crimes that became «Crown pleas.» After the Norman invasion, there were many different types of farms in addition to the royal court – the tin mining farms of Devon and Cornwall, the courts of the royal hunting forests, for example – but mainly in the potential rivalry with the royal court were the feudal and majestic courts. During the reign of Henry II, the clerks of his court began to specialize in legal affairs and to act in a judicial capacity. The clerics belonged to the king`s royal entourage. The clergy played an important role in expanding the king`s legal powers. They developed a series of application forms called pleadings and established procedures that, perhaps significantly, gave them more importance and provided them with a generous income! Another important development was, for example, the expansion of the «royal peace». It was the monarch`s right, unlike a local lord, to deal with local riots or crimes.

Nevertheless, it can be argued that the law contributed significantly to the development of the English Middle Ages into what might be called a «state». First, political thought was greatly stimulated by disputes between kings and the Church over their relative authority. These have often been driven by polemics based heavily on law and legal arguments, and have been an important stimulus for ideological thinking that underpins the development of abstract notions of the state. Second, the study of Roman and ecclesiastical law from the late eleventh century onwards provided much of the language and many ideas for thinking about the state. Third, a commonly used criterion for the existence of the state is that it should have a monopoly on legitimate power. In the Middle Ages – as in all societies – law was only a means of settling disputes. An alternative was to resort to violence. Leaders tried to limit or prevent such direct actions in order to channel disputes through royal law.

Fourth, law was important for establishing a relationship between the king and his people as a whole, not just between the great men of their empire. Such a direct relationship between the king and the subject is another important element in many views of the state. These twelve-member committees are called «presenting juries» and are the ancestors of the grand jury that survives in the American legal system. Their allegations did not replace the traditional form of prosecution, where the victim or a relative had to lay an individual charge against the suspect in homicide cases. It seems that Henry considered traditional methods inadequate and thus introduced the general practice of presentation to circuit judges. All defendants in the jurors present were to be subjected to a water test, a test in which those who were swimming were found guilty because they had been thrown back into the water that had been blessed by a priest. Every condemned man had to lose a foot and from 1176 his right hand. Even if they were acquitted under torture, those who were particularly poorly honored had to leave the kingdom and never return under oath.

Robert was the victim of a misunderstanding or his name was miraculously removed from the list, but the incident shows the individual impact of legal reform. Royal laws, known as assizes, were passed at Clarendon in 1166 and Northampton in 1176 to take action against serious offenders. Royal judges were to travel throughout the empire, and: By the middle of the twelfth century, however, the king`s significant involvement in certain legal matters and the general administrative model were seriously threatened by the civil war of King Stephen`s reign (1135-54). The need to restore royal authority in order to restore the empire to the state of reign of his grandfather was one of the main forces behind Henry II`s reforms. These efforts brought him into conflict with his self-elected archbishop Thomas Becket, and the circle that led the conflict with Becket and developed their ideas of royalty in this context were the men whose ideas shaped the legal reforms. At the same time, impersonal factors, such as the growth of the formed government, also affected legal development. While Henry II is remembered by many for his tumultuous relationship with Thomas Becket and his sons Richard the Lionheart and John, it was the establishment of permanent professional courts in Westminster and the counties for which he is best known. These reforms forever changed the king`s relationship with church, state, and society. Thomas Becket in the stained glass window of Canterbury Cathedral© Even before Henry II`s reforms.

(1154-89), often regarded as the decisive period for the creation of English common law, England had experienced a legal regime characterized by considerable royal control. From Anglo-Saxon England came a tradition of legislation that focused on the king as protector of the empire, as a corrector of injustice. Similarly, the powerful government of the day tackled many of the same problems of theft and interpersonal violence as Henry II, and in quite similar ways. This administration, characterized in particular by the courts of the County and its subdivision of the Cent, survived the Norman conquest. Above all, unlike some regions of France and elsewhere in Europe, these administrative territories remained largely under royal control. The Normans also introduced important elements of their own English law, particularly customs relating to land ownership. Henry II`s reforms concerning land law protected the tenants of their masters by allowing them to turn to the lord`s superior, the king. This chapter focuses on the Royal Administration of Justice. It attempts to provide an interpretative account of Henry II`s reforms and their impact on land ownership and law. This chapter attempts to reconcile the evidence that the Anglo-Norman world was not an autonomous dominion but a considerable royal participation, and that the social impact of customs in Anglo-Norman England was not substantially different from that of common law rules, with the lingering impression that the reforms of Henry II and subsequent ones really made a difference.