| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="QuestionsBeingAnswered" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | The Reception, a process in the renaissance of replacement of "barbarian" medieval customary law by classical roman law [1], was occurring during the renaissance over Europe. Nevertheless, according to F.W. Maitland, as exposed in English Law and the Renaissance (1901), such process did not have the same success in England as in the rest of Continental Europe. What are the reasons that Maitland and latter authors give for the survival of common law in England? |
>
> | The Reception, a process in the renaissance of replacement of "barbarian" medieval customary law by classical roman law [1], was occurring during the renaissance over Europe. Nevertheless, according to F.W. Maitland, as he explained in English Law and the Renaissance (1901), such process did not have the same success in England as in the rest of Continental Europe. What are the reasons that Maitland and latter authors give for the survival of common law in England? |
| | [1] T.F.T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed. 1956), page 43. |
| | |
|
<
< | Plucknet in Concise History of Common Law (1956) explains that the process of Reception had a great influence in English Law, mainly over the judges and its sentences. They where many whom support the process, since, they recognize its simplicity and its adequacy with Christian history. By way of example he describe the creation by Henry VIII of professorships in Oxford and Cambridge dedicated to such subject. |
>
> | Plucknet in Concise History of Common Law (1956) explains that the process of the Reception had a great influence in English Law, mainly over the judges and their sentences. There where many who supported the process since they recognized its simplicity and its compatibility with Christian history. By way of example he describes the creation by Henry VIII of professorships at Oxford and Cambridge dedicated to the subject. |
| | |
|
<
< | But, Pucket claim, that the Reception could not influence the Common law Courts, as they were impermeable to foreign influence. The common law courts and the common law system was the assurance to the landowner class of the continuity of their wealth. As they fear that the intricate process of inheritance could be damaged by any change in the “old law”. |
>
> | But Plucknet's claims that the Reception could not influence the Common law Courts, as they were impermeable to foreign influence. The common law courts and the common law system was an assurance to the landowner class of the continuity of their wealth. They feared that the intricate process of inheritance could be damaged by any change in the “old law”. |
| | |
|
<
< | The interest of the landowners and the others interest groups created by the Common Law Courts. Such as the close system of education in the Inn of Courts, meaning a class of educated lawyers, whom defended their privileges and practices under common law. Allowed the survival of the Common Law against the Roman Law of the Digest, as opposed France, Germany and the majority of the European Realms. |
>
> | The interest of the landowners and the others interest groups created by the Common Law Courts. Such as the close system of education in the Inn of Courts, meaning a class of educated lawyers, who defended their privileges and practices under common law. This allowed the survival of the Common Law against the Roman Law of the Digest, as opposed to France, Germany and the majority of the European Realms. |
| |
-- IgnacioMenchaca - 22 Oct 2014 |
|
>
> | Plucknet and Baker seem to have had similar theses: landowners worried about the inheritance of their land (and thus resisted change to a system that was favorable to them), and King Henry VIII. What we should investigate further is why King VIII endowed these professorships at Oxford and Cambridge, what was his interest in a legal system alternative to the Common Law?
-- JulianAzran - 23 Oct 2014 |
| |
\ No newline at end of file |