Once it was compiled, it served as the basis for subsequent royal commissioners to enquire as to feudal dues owed to the King. William’s son Henry 1 (1100 - 1135) used itinerant commissioners to enquire into matters affecting feudal dues. Before Henry 11 (1154-1189) it is probable that these commissions were neither systematic nor frequent. It also seems probable that they did little judicial work originally. However, it seems to have been the practice, occasionally, to request the King to allow the royal commissioner to act as a judge in a particular case. They were therefore given a royal commission to act in that particular case. The commissioners had the advantage that they were regarded as being unbiased, in contrast to the local courts which, after the Conquest, were often franchised to the lord of the manor. The King might direct his royal commissioner, who would be a member of the Curia Regis, or a sheriff (who was the King’s officer) or a local justiciar, to try cases in the counties on an ad hoc basis. There is no evidence before the time of Henry 11 of the organisation of justices into regular circuits.
The eyres
Probably from the time of Henry 1, royal commissioners were appointed under ‘articles of eyre’. (The word ‘eyre’ is universally accepted as having been derived from the Latin word ‘iter’ meaning ‘journey’ though a more natural derivation would seem to be from the old French ‘oyer’ meaning ‘to hear’.) These articles consisted of a long list of questions which had to be answered by representatives of the hundreds within the counties where the eyre was held. They related to the royal revenues: what property had been forfeited, what property had escheated to the Crown; what rights of wardship, marriage etc. accrued to the Crown. In addition they were to enquire into what serious crimes (known as ‘pleas of the crown’) had been committed because those resulted in fines being payable to the Crown. In addition, the justices were empowered to enquire into the infringement of royal rights.
The eyre was, in effect, a full meeting of the people who would normally have assembled for the county court: in Anglo-Saxon times: archbishop, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, knight, freeholders of the county, four men and the reeve from each township, twelve men from each borough and anyone else summoned to attend. (See Holdsworth Vol 1 page 266).
Under Henry 1 it seems that eyres were restricted in locality, covering one or two counties. (Reedy: The Origins of the Genral Eyre in the reign of Henry 1, 41 Speculum 688 1966). Not until Henry 11 did the eyres become general eyres, where justices were sent out to all the counties of the kingdom. A county was liable to an eyre once every 7 years. However the King could order an eyre whenever he wished. There were complaints in the C13th that eyres were made too often. However by the time of Edward 111 (1327 - 1377), they seem to have largely gone out of use. This coincides with the increase in the wool trade with the continent and the resulting customs and excise duties payable to the King: he became less dependent upon his feudal dues for an income. The judges travelling on circuit continued however for the administration of justice.
Henry 11 and the possessory assizes
Henry 11 organised the itinerant justices into circuits. Although changed in detail over the years, the circuit system lasted until 1971. It survives today for the purposes of court organisation and the organisation of the bar - barristers must belong to a particular circuit, though they are permitted to undertake work outside the circuit.
In 1176, 18 justices were assigned to 6 circuits. In 1179 the number of justices increased but the number of circuits was reduced: 21 justices were assigned to 4 circuits. (Holdsworth - History of English Law, volume 1). Under the Assizes of Clarendon (1166) and Northampton (1176) (‘Assize’ simply means a ‘sitting’ and the word was used as a title of early legislation, made at a sitting of the curia regis. Later it became applied to the sittings of judges as they proceeded on their circuits), the reporting of serious crimes to the royal commissioners by juries of 12 men, became a regular and permanent feature of the administration of justice. The type of jury described is a Grand Jury (i.e. an accusing jury. Thus there became two methods of accusing a criminal. One was by appeal of felony, which was an accusation by a person wronged by the crime, e.g. a person whose goods had been stolen. This was tried by combat between the accuser and the accused. Secondly there was the indictment by a jury. The accused was then tried by ordeal or compurgation. (Maitland - Constitutional History of England). Eventually both types of accusation became triable by a jury called the petty (i.e. small) jury.
