Reading time: five minutes

By the end of the 12th Century, a framework for dispute resolution had arisen which involved principle, equity and a quasi-adversarial system. This blog will examine how much Anglo-Saxon law has contributed towards it. Anglo-Saxon law will be confined to Aethelbert’s code (the code) of the early seventh century, distinct from other early Germanic statements (leges barbarorum).

Firstly, the revolutionary nature of the code will be analysed, specifically on the horizontal justice system in place for dispute resolution. Then there’ll be comparisons against Norman practices. Finally, it’ll be contended that Anglo-Saxon law has contributed to the growth of common law but there are significant independent advancements, particularly during the Angevin dynasty. 

In showing the significance of Anglo-Saxon law for the development of dispute resolution, it’s important to assess the context and its predecessor. While the Roman Empire substantially impacted notions of democracy and its legal terminology remains, the end of the 11th Century and Roman rule was turbulent. In light of this, Aethelbert’s code can be seen as paramount in maintaining order and stability, ultimately leading to the foundation of the common law – in contrast to previous anarchy.

Why’s Aethelbert’s codification significant?

Firstly, it enables the premise of common law, to easily identify binding customs and rules that can later be built on. Due to the novel rigidity of laws, the specific compensation for offences could then be disseminated with ease. The law’s accessibility was further improved by the code being written in the vernacular, rather than Latin, which was considered a language for the educated.

Broadening the audience of who can understand Anglo-Saxon law on dispute resolutions mirrors how a wider population can use the respective remedies. Aethelbert was motivated in writing the code after the example of European Christian kings, heirs of the Roman Empire, who’d done the same. Supported by the widespread belief that Aethelbert was motivated by Christian ideals on retribution in dispute resolution, Anglo-Saxon law is a dominant player in the common law framework.

Additionally, Anglo-Saxon law began to dismantle the strictly horizontal justice system in place, in which feuding was prevalent. In one way, Aethelbert’s code maintains this, seen through the individualistic provisions and even the singular form of verbs (gebete, forgelde) – let him pay, not let them pay. Though direct compensation between individuals is enforced, the code also has a vertical system with a sense of overriding wrong; there’s a standard of how citizens should act and settle conflict, often being answerable to the king. 

Nevertheless, the focus on kinsmanship is particularly Anglo-Saxon. Therefore, it’s questionable how much this impacts the general common law framework. It’s been argued that late Anglo-Saxon civilisation should not even be considered a state as, even though there was the emergence of a more centralised government and assemblies, there was also a lot of violence and feuding. I would argue that with Anglo-Saxon law as the pedigree for a joint horizontal and vertical system, it should be considered a state but different to the modern concept of one.

What are the code’s limitations?

The code, noticeably does not mention legal enforcement. By the end of the 12th Century, there was greater recognition of the rule of law principle of procedure within dispute resolution. Edward the Confessor appointed skilled judges and rightly asserted that good law is enforceable. Conversely, Aethelbert’s code was solely standardising what was already in practice. However, while the Anglo-Saxons proposed assemblies for the verification of wrong doing, they cannot solely take credit for legal enforcement. Arguably, it was Christian beliefs of repentance that started the practice of flexible punishment, which then led the Normans to develop the remedying framework.

Furthermore, dispute resolution regarding land was a major theme and was significantly influenced by the coherent Norman feudal customs that were brought in, though primogeniture remained prominent. While this has impacted dispute resolution, there was little other development of the common law from the Normans due to civil warring. In addition, the Norman’s advances build on Anglo-Saxon law. For example, William the Conqueror established a separate ecclesial courts for episcopal laws to be dealt with, which is similar to the protection offered to the church by the initial provisions of the code.

In the same fashion, the Angevin dynasty is believed to be established from Anglo-Saxon laws. Customary laws were elevated to national status, making laws more consistent and clear. Henry II also developed William the Conqueror’s court system, to have secular courts for dispute resolutions with clerics. However, it’d be anachronistic to attribute all dramatic implementations to Anglo-Saxon law. Many important changes were made in the Angevin period, like circuit justices and the justices of Glen Eyre delivering judgements, imposing uniformity and reducing the power of local barons.

Henry II’s innovations also include the beginning of the jury system (article nine, ‘by the inquest of the twelve lawful men’) and bench of common pleas, a powerful display for central justice and civil action on property and debt. While this significantly contributed to the common law framework, it can only be correlated back to Anglo-Saxon law through reach, if at all.

Conclusion

Fundamentally, Anglo-Saxon law has contributed to the growth of common law and framework for dispute resolutions, laying the foundations through codification and accessibility. The joint vertical and horizontal justice system planted the seeds for civilised and fairer recourse. However, there are elements it lacks, like enforcement and judges. Though most ideological and simple aspects are contingent on Aethelbert’s code, not everything is. It ought to be conceded that a lot of the significant contributions for the common law framework were during the Angevin dynasty, due to the numerous innovations of King Henry II that are independent of Anglo-Saxon law.