Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. Though the Normans were not very enthusiastic to completely change the English customary law by imposing Norman law in England, attempts were, however, made by Normans to introduce some kind of uniformity in English law and it was sought to be achieved with the introduction of General Eyre, whereby representatives of the King were sent from Westminster, on a tour of the Shires, for the purpose of checking on the local administration. During the period of their visit, they would sit in the local Courts and hear cases and, gradually, they came to discharge a judicial rather than an administrative function. At a later stage, the Judges for the General Eyre were selected from the Court of Common Pleas, which normally sat at Westminster, but remained closed, while the Judge were on circuit.

35. The General Eyre disappeared in the reign of Richard II (1377-99) and it came to be replaced by a system of circuit Judges from the King's Bench, the first circuit commission being granted in the reign of Edward III (1327-77). By selecting the best customary rulings and applying these outside their county of origin, the circuit judges, gradually, molded existing local customary laws into one uniform law, which became 'common' to the whole kingdom. Thus, customs, originally local, came to be, ultimately applied throughout England. Even so, there was no absolute uniflication even as late as 1389 and, in a case, in the Common Pleas, in that year, a custom of Selby, in Yorkshire, was admitted to show that a husband was not in that area liable for his wife's trading debts, though the common law elsewhere regarded him as liable. However, many new rules were created and applied by the royal Judges as they went on circuit and these were added to local customary laws to make one uniform body of law called 'common law'. Though the 'common law' was largely said to be based on custom, the fact remains that the 'common law' is historically judge-made law. This is reflected from the decision, in Beaulieu v. Finglass (1401) YB 2 Hen. 4, f. 18, pl. 6, wherein it was said that a man, who, by negligence, failed to control a fire so that it did not spread to his neighbour's house, was liable to pay damages according to 'the law and custom of the realm', though it is not easy to see on what customary rule, the Court based this decision.