Law has been around for a long time and the development and history of law is an important part of our cultural heritage. However little is known about it (compared to, for example, military history) and I don’t think it is studied much nowadays.
My husband, when I said this to him, gave a hollow laugh and said that there was probably a reason for this. Meaning of course that it is boring.
But the history of law is not really boring. It seems boring as the documents it is recorded in are hard if not impossible for us to read nowadays (unless you understand Latin and Norman French – which incidentally I don’t), and even modern textbooks are not an easy read, due largely to to the unfamiliar terminology involved.
The study of law, on its own, divorced from its application, is always dull and dusty. It is when you look at what people do with it, that it suddenly becomes fascinating.
Law and the history of law is really all about people. The mad bonkers things that they argue about, and their deviousness in trying to outwit authority. The history of law is also the story of the King (or occasionally the Queen) trying to impose their will on the people, and the people trying with equal determination to avoid this and do things their own way. Preferably without paying taxes.
To me the history of law is far more interesting than all those dreary battles we had to learn about at school.
As regular readers will know, I have recently finished my series Foundations in Landlord and Tenant Law. In writing that series I touched on legal history from time to time. In my research I found all sorts of other interesting ‘nuggets’ which did not really fit into the foundation series, but which I still wanted to write about. So the idea of a history series was born.
“There won’t be an audience for it” warned my husband. But I am just going to ignore him (which is, anyway, what husbands are for). I can’t be the only person who finds legal history interesting. And it is after all my blog. You don’t have to read the history posts if you don’t want to.
So I am starting on a journey. A journey through English legal history. Starting (more or less) at the time of the Norman conquest and moving (more or less) forward chronologically, with jumps backwards and forwards In time as the fancy takes me.
My guide will be the excellent Introduction to English Legal History by JH Baker, which I was introduced to long ago when I did my law degree. I also have all the resources of the internet at my finger tips, to review and research. And of course, find pictures.
I don’t claim to be any sort of expert, and the posts won’t be learned dissertations, just my own interpretation and comments, based on a bit of background reading. I want to look particularly at the development of legal ideas which eventually came to form part of our modern landlord and tenant law, and at the original meaning of words which have legal connotations today.
And to shed a bit of light into a little known area of our history, and tell a few funny stories.
If any reason is necessary for this series, other than the fact that it is interesting in itself, it is that a study of the past helps us better understand the present, and may also give us greater resources to glimpse into the future.
We’ll be starting soon, and going back to Norman times.
.svg){kind=link}
Tessa I am with you on this. I am in the weird position of being heavily involved in housing law without any legal training. Like so many of 200,000+ people working in housing today I have no legal training. The necessities of the job force you to learn.
As regular readers will know I even represent people in court, with a 99% success rate, without anything more than a driving licence to my name.
What i love about this webiste is it is the only one I can understand on a first reading.
I learn loads from reading Nearly Legal, Swarb Law, Pain Smith, Arden Chambers, Garden court but I usually have to print articles off and read them 5 or 6 times before I understand what they are on about.
There are an army of non lawyers working in housing law hwo know nothing of French or latin. Bring it on girl
What an absolutely fantastic idea. Are you going to stick to Baker or sally with Holdsworth? Looking forward to it hugely.
@Gilliam Baker is the only text book I have, so it will be supplemented by readings from the Internet. I have been delving into Wikipedia today.
Its not going to be a *learned* series, you know. Feel free to correct me if I get anything wrong.
@Ben The posts won’t help you much in your job (not the early ones anyway), but may help if you ever have to compile a set of questions for a pub quiz …
Oh everything helps Tessa. Just yesterday I came across the concept of Profits a Prendre which opens up a whole new world of interest.
I am, if I do say myself, quite a good cook. I can knock up a batch of tomato ketchup from scratch or Thai quails eggs in star anise and cumin but I have to read a recipe to do a basic flan pastry. thats because I didnt learn the basics at catering school that allows a chef to improvise.
Same with my legal knowledge, it developed piecemael for me and out of necessity on a case by case basis.
I have taken out an injunction agianst the directors of a major building society, succesfully defended around 400 mortgage repossession cases in court against big name banks, prosecuted numerous thug landlords but I still struggle with the roots of it all and would love to know more.
I’ll put the first one online tomorrow
I read this with interest. I remember the days when I studied GCE ‘A’ Level (Blimey that is a lnog time ago) and we studied the history of law. I then went on a few years later to study this in english legal system when I did my first law degree. I will be honest when I orginally was taught this I found it dry and boring.
Yes I am one of the housing advisers who does have that legal background.
Some years later I undertook a course in the USA. I found it suprising how fundamental at that time they saw the Magna Carter. In fact you go on government websites and find it there. It is often referred to on these as the Magna Charter. I recall finding it on an education department website, yes the whole text. They seem to value it more than we do such as on the right of trial by jury. We could of course debate this at length but just showing you the difference.
I had a quick look at a number of University sites and I see they still teach ELS but whether that includes history I do not know.
Whilst at the time I found it very boring I believe if it is given in context it can be seen how the law has developed which in some ways is important. Such as the distinction between common law and equity and the different remedies. In terms of housing law the prerogative writs as they were called in other words for practical purposes judicial review.
Anyhow I thought I would give some input.
Ron
Thanks for your comment Ron. Please do join in with you thoughts as the series goes along. I am sure everyone else will be far more erudite than me.
I had a go at common law and equity here http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/05/25/a-digression-on-equity-and-the-court-of-chancery/ so I may pass on that in this series. Then again, I may not.
It is actually because I enjoyed writing that post so much that I thought a history series would be good.
I’m really pleased that you all like the idea of the history series and I hope it will come up to your expectations. But if it doesn’t you can always add your own comments.
Well, I find it all very interesting Tessa, so keep ignoring Mr Tessa!