OCR Specification focus:
‘The links between central and local government; the development of Common Law, including the contributions of Anglo-Saxon customary law, feudal law and those of Anglo-Norman and Angevin kings.’
Local government under the Normans and Angevins evolved as both an extension and a reflection of central authority, linking royal power with local administration and justice.
The Connection Between Central and Local Government
The development of local government in the period 1066–1216 cannot be understood without recognising the interdependence of the centre and the shires. The king’s authority, exercised through central institutions such as the Exchequer and the Chancery, required effective local enforcement.
Sheriffs (shire-reeves) acted as the Crown’s representatives in the counties, collecting revenues, raising troops, and overseeing local courts.
Royal writs, sealed in chancery, provided instructions to local officials, ensuring central decisions reached the provinces.
Justices in Eyre, itinerant royal judges, bridged the gap by travelling through the realm to administer royal justice directly.
This system strengthened the king’s ability to enforce law and secure revenue while reducing the autonomy of local magnates.
Sheriff: A royal official in charge of administering the king’s justice and financial rights within a county (shire).
The success of this arrangement depended on balancing royal oversight with cooperation from local elites, who remained indispensable to governance.
Anglo-Saxon Customary Law
Before 1066, Anglo-Saxon customary law shaped local justice and community order.
Hundreds and tithings organised communities into collective responsibility units.
Witan (royal council) and shire courts administered justice through communal verdicts and compensation payments.
Trial by ordeal and oath-swearing reflected the deeply religious and kin-based nature of justice.
Although William the Conqueror introduced Norman practices, many Anglo-Saxon traditions endured. Their continuity provided stability, ensuring local populations recognised the legitimacy of justice under new rulers.
Customary law: A system of law based on local traditions and communal practice, often unwritten, shaping how disputes were settled.
This inheritance was critical in forming the later Common Law system.
Anglo-Saxon shire and hundred courts—continued under the Normans—provided local forums for dispute settlement and royal administration.
Illustration of a shire-moot (c. 835), a local assembly for justice and administration. Such courts persisted after 1066, informing procedures that Angevin reforms later integrated into Common Law. Note: as a historical reconstruction (1909), it visualises practice but is not a contemporary scene. Source
Feudal Law and Its Local Administration
After 1066, the introduction of feudal law reshaped landholding and governance.
Tenants-in-chief owed military and financial obligations to the king.
Manorial courts resolved disputes among peasants and enforced obligations to lords.
Feudal incidents, such as reliefs and wardships, reinforced the Crown’s economic power.
Feudal law was a powerful mechanism of control but was limited in scope; disputes beyond the manor increasingly drew in royal officials.
The Anglo-Norman Kings and Local Government
The Norman kings strengthened royal authority through systematic oversight of local structures.
William I balanced Norman innovations with Anglo-Saxon traditions, retaining shire courts.
William II (Rufus) relied heavily on royal officials, enhancing the financial role of sheriffs.
Henry I introduced reforms that made local administration more accountable, using royal justices and financial audits.
Exchequer: The central financial office of the king, responsible for auditing sheriffs’ accounts and collecting royal revenue.
Henry I’s systematised use of the Exchequer bound local sheriffs tightly to central supervision, ensuring financial regularity and increasing royal revenue.
Sheriffs rendered their annual accounts at the Exchequer, a process recorded on the Pipe Rolls that tied shire administration to Westminster.
Facsimile of a 1194 Pipe Roll page recording a sheriff’s audited account at the Exchequer. The columnar layout and formulaic Latin entries reflect standardised royal administration under the Angevins. This shows how local revenues and obligations were centralised in Westminster. Source
The Angevin Contribution and the Growth of Common Law
The reigns of Henry II, Richard I, and John marked a decisive stage in the development of Common Law.
Henry II introduced the Assize of Clarendon (1166) and the Assize of Northampton (1176), formalising royal justice.
The Grand Jury system began, replacing communal accusations with structured investigations led by juries of free men.
Standard writs simplified access to royal justice and ensured consistency across the realm.
Itinerant justices became a permanent feature, reinforcing the king’s presence in the localities.
Common Law: A system of law common to the whole kingdom, based on royal court decisions rather than local custom, ensuring uniformity of justice.
This shift marked the gradual replacement of disparate local customs with a unified system grounded in royal authority.
The Role of Sheriffs and Justices in Eyre
The sheriff’s traditional role was reduced under Henry II, who sought to curb their independence. Many were replaced with men of lesser local standing, directly dependent on the Crown.
Sheriffs continued to oversee finances, but the Exchequer audits limited opportunities for corruption.
Justices in Eyre travelled across England, holding royal courts in the shires, ensuring the king’s law was consistently applied.
Assizes provided clear procedures for dealing with disputes, such as novel disseisin (land disputes), embedding royal authority in local affairs.
This integration tied the locality ever more closely to the monarchy.
The Impact of Local Government Structures on Society
The extension of royal authority through local institutions had several long-term effects:
Standardisation of justice reduced the power of local magnates to impose arbitrary rule.
Greater reliance on juries shifted responsibility for justice from lords to communities.
Strengthening of royal revenue through sheriffs’ accountability enhanced central government’s financial base.
Expansion of bureaucracy created a cadre of trained administrators loyal to the king.
These developments laid the foundations for a centralised state where local and central government were inseparable.
FAQ
Local juries acted as intermediaries between community knowledge and royal justice. By presenting accusations and evidence, they ensured that the king’s justices had reliable local information.
This system reduced dependence on ordeal and oath-swearing, while also involving communities in enforcing royal law, strengthening the legitimacy of Common Law.
Writs provided a clear, uniform written command from chancery, directed to sheriffs, bishops, or other local leaders.
They reduced ambiguity by using formulaic legal language.
They helped ensure local obligations were enforced consistently across counties.
Their spread allowed royal justice to penetrate areas previously dominated by customary practice.
The Angevin kings faced extensive territories and the need to enforce uniform justice. Itinerant justices ensured royal authority was visible and consistent.
They lessened the influence of sheriffs, who could be corrupt or tied to local elites, and ensured that judgments aligned with central policies, embedding royal authority more deeply into local administration.
Exchequer audits compelled sheriffs to account for all revenues collected.
They reduced corruption by subjecting sheriffs to scrutiny.
They guaranteed accurate flow of funds into the royal treasury.
They encouraged the use of standardised records like the Pipe Rolls, creating a precedent for systematic financial accountability.
While Common Law centralised many procedures, local traditions persisted.
Communities still drew on established customs in jury deliberations.
Manorial and hundred courts often applied local norms in minor disputes.
Even as royal law expanded, reliance on community memory and collective judgment reflected enduring Anglo-Saxon influences.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Name two ways in which sheriffs linked local government to central government between 1066 and 1216.
Mark scheme:
1 mark for each valid example up to a maximum of 2 marks.
Acceptable answers include:
Collecting royal revenues and rendering them at the Exchequer (1 mark)
Raising troops on behalf of the Crown (1 mark)
Administering local courts on the king’s behalf (1 mark)
Enforcing royal writs and orders from chancery (1 mark)
Question 2 (5 marks):
Explain how Anglo-Saxon customary law contributed to the development of Common Law under the Anglo-Norman and Angevin kings.
Mark scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Simple description with limited knowledge, e.g. “Anglo-Saxon law influenced later kings” with no detail.
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Clear explanation of specific features of Anglo-Saxon law (e.g. use of shire and hundred courts, oath-swearing, collective responsibility) and how these persisted.
Level 3 (5 marks): Developed explanation showing both continuity and integration, e.g. Anglo-Saxon courts and communal responsibility provided a framework later standardised into Common Law by Henry II’s reforms.
Marks are awarded for:
Identifying features of Anglo-Saxon law (up to 2 marks)
Linking those features to continuity in later practice (up to 2 marks)
Explaining how these fed into the creation of Common Law under the Norman/Angevin kings (1 mark)
