British Library Impresses Mahone ’15

Zach Mahone ’15 – The British Library was one of the newer buildings that we visited on our tour of London, however its roots are dated back to 1760. The British Library is actually a collection of older libraries that were assembled and finally opened in 1998. The Libraries that make up the British Library are the library department of the British Museum, the National Central Library, the National Lending Library for Science and Technology, and a few others. The idea for a central library started to form after WWII when shelving was severely limited due to the destruction of the Blitz. The British government recognized a need for more shelving but it wasn’t until 1971 that the process of creating the British Library began. In 1972 the British Library Act was passed but due to complications with a building site completion of the library was pushed back to 1998.

The British Library contains 14 million books and 150 million items stretched out over 180 miles of shelving. As our class entered the library our group of 20 was completely dwarfed by the massive library. Needless to say we did not see all of the library and we instead decided to spend most of our time in just one section. The section that we decided to visit was the more “classical” section of the library. This section was especially relevant to our Common Law class because it housed the Magna Carta. While the Magna Carta section was amazing, I was most affected by things like the first English copy of the bible and edited copies of sheet music by composers like Bach. It was interesting to see all the scribbles and cross outs of Bach’s original sheet music and the color and gilding on the early bibles were great. With all these great books on display it was a bit of disappointment that I couldn’t touch the pages and read through them, but for many of these books and articles human contact would be destructive.

The British Library was a great stop on our tour across London and if you are ever in the area I highly recommend stopping in. You could see anything from the first copy of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland all the way to the Magna Carta.

Neal ’15 Presents Paper at Roycal Courts

Adam Neal ’15 – Based on our mixed luck with presentations so far, Likai and I still weren’t sure about how our presentation would turn out, even as we passed through security into the Royal Courts of Justice.  We had done as much research as we could about the building itself, its organization and function, but we couldn’t shake the nagging feeling that we would be silenced abruptly like Patrick and Michael were at the Tower of London.

There are few buildings that can truly be called majestic, but the Royal Courts of Justice have more than earned the description.  As soon as you enter the building, it opens up into a great hall, whose floor is littered with mosaic designs, with large columned walls that extend almost twenty meters up, interrupted only by elevated stain-glass windows decorated with many colorful coat-of-arms.  Combined with its high pointed arches and sweeping flying buttresses, the RCJ is a textbook example of a Neo-Gothic style cathedral, an apt comparison given that the architect who was commissioned to build it, Sir George Edmund Street, thought he was designing one at the time.  Buildings like the RCJ are one the best things about London: humility that comes with being in the presence of such famous and venerable institutions, ones which seem to defy the effects of time and history.

The building was opened in 1882 by Queen Victoria, who believed that the different courts across the nation needed to be consolidated into one location (to an extent).  This integration was an important step in the continuation of the merging between common law and equity in England, an important theme to which we have often returned during both class and this trip.  The common law courts merged into the High Court in 1875, while the Chancery/equity courts merged in 1875.

After meeting our tour guide, he took us into court room 7, one of the original and oldest courtrooms in the building.  Even though some of us had already been inside in order to listen to cases, it was still worth noting how small these courtrooms were in comparison to what we’re used to seeing in the States.

After discovering that we had done some research on the RCJ already, our tour guide very graciously allowed me and Likai to present some of our findings on the building, from the desk of the court clerk and stenographer no less.  Despite being neither of those, we managed to surprise the tour guide, accidentally jumping ahead of his planned remarks on several occasions.

The most distinguishing feature of the RCJ as an institution must be its distinct division of labor.  Of the main divisions, first is Chancery, which handles business, trade, and industry disputes.  Second is Queen’s Bench handling large commercial disputes and civil wrongs, and finally Family with divorce, custody, etc.  There is also the Administrative Court, which handles judicial review.  You won’t see any criminal cases being handled at the RCJ unless an already convicted criminal is appealing a decision.  It was also interesting to learn that there are no jury trials at the RCJ, with however the exception of libel and slander cases.

Learning and (more importantly) seeing practically every detail, from who sits where in the courtroom and different official garb to the little quirks in the building’s construction really made the Royal Courts of Justice come alive as a living, working legal organism.  Seeing barristers in action also greatly expounded upon the talks we had earlier in the week, and really placed what we learned in a modern, practice-instead-of-preach light.

Poe ’13: London a Place ‘I Never Want to Leave’

Trevor Poe ’13 – Returning to London for the first time since studying abroad brings back great memories.  However, I did not come to London to relive the past, I came to learn about it.  Today we visited the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey to tour some of the places we learned about in our course over the history of Anglo-American Common Law.  At the palace, commonly referred to as the Houses of Parliament, our group enjoyed a private tour of the building.  On our tour, we saw the House of Commons, House of Lords, and the Queen’s robbing room.

The Neo-Gothic architecture and decoration of the building impressed me with its grandeur.  Westminster Hall, a particular part of the palace, held important significance for the course.  The hall once served as the location for the Court of Chancery, Court of Common Pleas, and the King’s Bench until they got their own buildings on Fleet Street, which we visited earlier in the week.  Seeing such a historically important building helped make important connections about the evolution of Anglo-American law, and its origins in England.

After the conclusion of the tour, our class walked across the street to enjoy the sights of Westminster Abbey.  The Abbey contains the graves of many of Britain’s most important figures, and serves as the site for the coronation of British monarchs.  Following sightseeing in the Abbey, I traveled with two of fraternity brothers to watch a soccer (football) match.  While studying abroad during my junior year, I became an adamant supporter of the Queens Park Rangers football club.  I simply could not pass up the chance to watch a match while visiting London.  Seeing my club win a much-needed victory allowed me to end my trip to London on a high note.  L

London is a place that I never want to leave, but traveling with my class allowed me to make the most of this learning opportunity.

Dettmer ’16 Appeciating Westminister

Andrew Dettmer ’15 – Well, the last day has finally arrived.  With our final day in London we spent our time at Westminster Palace and Westminster Abbey.  Most people have heard of Westminster Abbey because it was the venue of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding. At the beginning of the trip our tour guide mentioned America’s fascination with the British Monarchy; and from the amount of Americans at the Abbey that was clearly evident.

The Abbey itself was an amazing artistic master piece and was filled with many of the names that we have spent our semester reading about, and showed the power of the monarchy that at one time ruled this country single handedly. However across the street is Westminster Palace, the original palace of the monarchy it now houses the British Parliament. It was very impressive and informative to see how the traditions of this country play out in their governance. They still vote by counting you as present in either the “aye” or “nay” rooms, which while mildly old fashioned is a system they like. The building itself was very impressive. As I said earlier, it used to be a palace for the monarchy until Henry VIII moved down the street to Whitehall, guess he needed more room for all of his wives.  This building has been here since around the 11th century, and much of the historic part of the building still stands.

During World War II Winston Churchill chose to “let the Commons burn,” his own wing of government, in order to save this treasured national icon. Both of these experiences allowed us to see where the battle over governance happened. In fact until 2009 the House of Lords served as the highest court in England until they created a Supreme Court that looks much like ours.

After our time at Westminster we were free to spend our last afternoon in London as we wished.  Two of my fraternity brothers and I headed off Loftus Road to watch the Queens Park Rangers F.C. take on Sunderland in an exciting Premier League match.  It’s a shame that soccer hasn’t caught on in the U.S. because the match made for quite an exciting afternoon.  QPR pulled out a 3-1 victory in a game that may help them avoid relegation to a lower league. Trevor Poe is a huge fan and sharing the experience and excitement with him was a great experience and introduced to a great side of English culture. Seriously, everyone should go to a good soccer, or football as they say, match and see some of the most passionate and die hard sports fans around.  It made for a great ending to an already awesome week.

As I finish this post, I’m also finishing packing as we’ll be leaving London in just a few hours.  This week has been amazing and I’ve definitely fallen in love with London.  The trip not only allowed us to see and experience what we had studied in the classroom, but I made some great new friends, strengthened old friendships, and has me extremely excited to return to the U.K next fall for study abroad.  While I’m exhausted from everything we’ve managed to cram in our schedule in the past 9 days and I’ll be grateful to return home, I’ll be sad to leave London and these experiences behind.

Wichlinski ’14 Finds More Amazing History

Neil Wichlinski ’14 -  After spending a week with my head tilted back, eyes toward the ceiling of London’s most astonishing structures, I had thought my yearning for sights outside the country were sufficiently satisfied. For this reason, as we approached Westminster Abbey I found myself less excited to enter than I might have been five days earlier.

Somewhat reluctantly, I filed through the gigantic wooden doors, exhaling as I cracked my neck, preparing it for another hour of inversion. But this reluctance soon subsided as my love for history kicked in like a Tylenol with the first sight of the main hall. All the previous depictions I’ve seen and heard did not even scratch the surface of the brilliance of the Abbey. You could feel the events that had taken place there, all the burials, coronations, and controversies that made the Abbey what it is. This might also have been egged on by my superstitious inclinations which were agitated by all the graves I inadvertently walked over. But all the grave dodging made my appreciation for this location grow as I looked down and saw names like Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin. I was even more astonished by the thought of the men and women who walked through this Abbey, sat in the coronation throne, and were laid to rest within the many nooks and crannies scattered throughout the Abbey. It was also great to see who was not buried in, but honored by the Abbey like Martin Luther King Jr. and William Shakespeare which brought to light the people valued by English culture. This factor was driven home to me by the irony that Charles Darwin’s body could be found in a church.

Overall, this was a great location to visit, it’s definitely one of those places you have to visit in your lifetime. I was absolutely amazed by what human beings could create without modern technology. It was also great to see the center of the connection between religion and English politics which really brought to light how valuable the church was to the stability of the government.

Change in Plans Can Be Good

Matt Paul ’13 – Riley and I were all set to make our presentation; we had known for some weeks that we would have to present over the Inns of Court, one of the most historically enduring features of the English legal system. We had done preparation before the trip and the night before; we knew that there were four inns, what each one was called, where they were, what their function was, even the types of people that were likely to join them. Riley was especially ready to present their role within the English legal system as whole, and how the inns provided specially trained advocate barristers with training and a legal community. I had focused more on the history of each of the inns and how that continued to manifest itself today.

We should have known that our grand plans to lead our group would have to be adjusted. We had already had two guided visits in England, both of which had been different than expected. On Sunday we had made the train ride to near the coast of England to visit the battlefield of Hastings. We had a wonderful visit, but ironically, we were provided with a guide who was doing his first tour of the battlefield, while having with us one of the worlds leading historians on the battle (Professor Morillo) and two students (Rob and Jake) who had been researching the issue on their own for the past several weeks. As our guide said, “This will probably be the easiest guided tour that I ever give.”

Subsequently, at Monday morning’s tour of the Tower of London, after being provided with a virtually silent guide at Hastings, Patrick and Michael found themselves silenced by a guiding monopoly that put an end to their tour with a force that befitted the harsh history of the Tower. As soon as they were hitting their stride, telling us about the central tower building that gives the castle its name, a beefeater briskly informed us that guided tours were only allowed to be given by sanctioned tour guides.

So after this history (or might one in the spirit of our law class call it precedent?) Riley and I should have known that a wrinkle might be thrown in the plans of our guiding plans. That wrinkle was named Joanne Lee, the British guide of our tour of “Legal and Illegal London.” While there were initial worries about the potential cheesiness of a tour with this name, these worries were soon put to rest by this small but knowledgable woman who had in fact used to practice English law as a solicitor. Like most of the English we met she was full of jokes, but this in no way compromised her expertise. And, while this knowledge was very interesting, especially combined with her personal experience as a solicitor, Riley and I spent much of the tour mentally or physically checking off information from our list of information. By the end of the tour every one of our points of research had already been covered by that incredible woman! And yet it was impossible to be upset, despite the destruction of our dreams to be tour guides. The tour was beyond fantastic, from the information, to the sites, to the anecdotes. The weather was a bit cold, but beautiful (and rare for London) afternoon sunlight created big shadows with the magnificent, historical buildings that highlighted our tour. By the end we were all ready for a warm room and comfortable chair, but no one would have argued that it hadn’t been a wonderful afternoon led by a fantastic woman who it would be impossible to begrudge for stealing our thunder. As I have heard so many times of the past few days, cheers!

Learning from Barristers and Solicitors in England

Michael Carper ’13 - Our course of study this semester has straddled between history and law. We may discuss current legal issues or case law in class, but it’s to conclude historical and legal development, and then project issues for the future. For instance, our last unit focused on equity’s takeover of common law in civil cases–that is, how the more flexible procedures of equity replaced the rigid writs of the common law. We would then look at a “current” application of this trend. Today and yesterday’s meetings with current legal professionals in London provided an incredibly timely issue with historical bearings. But first, a parallel example from our course work, which demonstrates the broader theme this current example falls under.

One odd theme that I’ve noticed in class, as we’ve studied these trends of legal development, is the unplanned accumulation of structure, and then resistance to it. Indeed, the replacement of writs with equity’s discovery of evidence is a perfect example of this. Discovery was intended as a more discretionary way to determine the merits of a case before starting, much more so than writs, which couldn’t help but bring on a full trial. Based on the potential benefits awarded to the winner, the costs paid by the loser, and the actual existence of evidence, the judge may decide to grant summary judgment, that is, stop the case, or let it go  through.

And yet, the mere method of discovery is subject to structure. We looked at the Supreme Court case Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) which dealt with how much “evidence” the plaintiff is required to present in order to stop a summary judgment–that is, to make the trial process go through. Despite the fact that the charge at hand, anti-competitive activity, isn’t easily discernible without the discovery process, the Court ruled that the evidence the plaintiffs could present before discovery as evidence wasn’t sufficient. Discovery, like much of equity, was supposed to avoid rigid, impractical adherence to rules. But as it progresses, it begins to resemble what it was supposed to replace. It seems the Western legal system will always be destined for rigidity.

What does this have to do with London? Yesterday, we took a tour from a solicitor-turned-tour guide. Solicitors in the English legal system counsel clients. They do everything except argue in front of a judge or jury–which barristers do. We met a barrister yesterday as well, who elaborated on the divide between barristers and solicitors. Barristers only answer to the court, and are hired by solicitors to advocate in it. They’re self-employed and have no contact with the clients. There’s greater risk, and thus greater reward. Chris admitted a certain sense of superiority over solicitors.

Today, we met some solicitors who are partners in Prof. Himsel’s international law firm, Faegre Baker Daniels. John and Stephen attributed most typical “lawyer” work, like giving counsel, collecting evidence, and drafting documents to solicitors. However, when they prepare for trial, solicitors have to work with barristers to prepare the case–since the solicitors have knowledge about the specific case and client, while barristers know the law and how it will affect the case and client.

They remarked that the divide between barristers and solicitors is beginning to crumble. Solicitors can be trained to argue in court, while barristers can be hired in a solicitor-type role. A large client might want both in-house, in order to avoid outside counsel and secure the most expansive representation. The tasks relegated to each are no longer unique. Both Chris and John and Stephen foresaw greater fusion of the roles

I see this is as yet another example of resistance to structure. The divide between solicitors and barristers is result of the long struggle between law and fact. In the English Common Law, the jury was supposed to find only fact, not law. The instructing judge was supposed to explain the law. Yet this division of personnel overlooks the complicated relationship between law and fact, and the flexibility required to apply the law to new facts. Equity tried to solve this procedural by granting the power to decide both to the sitting judge, albeit at separate levels. However, the personnel problem, in the U.K., resides. Nowadays, barristers are supposed to explain the law, while solicitors know the facts. Yet if they have to work together, why make a hard distinction between them–and why hire two lawyers?

It may be that in 20 or 30 years, the historical divide between counsel and advocate will be further eroded. And though it’s a current event in law, it’s one rich with historical development and parallels. This particular intersection of law and history was only apparent upon our visit here. It came straight from the horse’s mouth, from lawyers who are actively intertwined with these developing legal trends. It wouldn’t have been possible without a trip here.


Floyd Sees Differences, Commonalities

Riley Floyd ’13 – “We’re constantly evolving. We’re not like you.” That’s how our tour guide today summed up the British legal system. And she was serious.

It’s interesting to think of the British legal system as an evolving one. After all, the British legal profession is still (for the most part) split between solicitors (those who directly assist legal clients) and barristers (who litigate for clients). What’s more, the barristers appearing in court still wear wigs and robes. But despite these seemingly antiquated remnants of a fading past, British law is anything but static.

Riley Floyd ’13

Take the division between solicitors and barristers, for example. As time goes on and legal matters become more complex, the division between the two is beginning to fade. Increasingly, barristers have direct access to clients, and solicitors might not always need the assistance of a barrister to litigate their cases. The British legal system, despite its deeply rooted traditions, is still developing–much like our own.

We’ve talked a lot in this class about social and cultural values and how they manifest themselves in the law. I think it’s interesting that, as Americans, we often see ourselves as being more modern than our English predecessors. But, perhaps not surprisingly, the country that can trace its roots to 1066 and earlier has a lot to teach us. For example, British solicitors must rotate through four different sections of law during their training course. There is no such equivalent in American law. Sure, separate firms may institute requirements for their associates. But the ABA doesn’t mandate that every American lawyer must have litigation experience. Every British solicitor, on the other hand, must complete a litigation rotation.

Today, we toured the Inns of Court–complexes that initially served as the epicenters of legal education in London. Located throughout “Legal London,” the four Inns are: Gray’s, Lincoln, Inner Temple, and Middle Temple. Each Inn has its own style–much like a university or a fraternity. Early on, the Inns were a practical answer to a largely logistical question. Medieval legal proceedings took place in London. So, it became commonplace for visiting lawyers to rent space together. The Inns began as a place for lawyers to eat, sleep, and confer with each other about cases. Later, they became the destination for keen budding lawyers eager to learn. Today, the Inns of Court are still the aspiring barrister’s gateway to the bar. They contain a dining hall, library, and workspace. In addition, they house some practicing barristers. But they are not educational institutions. Joining an Inn is, however, mandatory for any aspiring barrister.

While solicitors complete training schemes with various firms, barristers complete what is known as the bar professional training course. They do so at the British equivalent of an American law school. The program lasts only one year. During their course, the barristers must attend 12 events at their Inn. The events might be formal, topic-based weekend retreats or formal dinners. The Inns provide networking opportunities for the next step in the barrister’s ascent to the bar: a pupillage in which an aspiring barrister works for a practicing barrister. It’s a kind of apprenticeship in litigation. And securing one is exceptionally difficult. I read somewhere that over 4,000 people compete for just 300 spots. Annually. Inns still prepare barristers for practice but without directly controlling their education.  The Inns, then, epitomize this concept of deeply traditional practices evolving to meet modern needs.

It was incredible to learn more about modern legal education in Britain. It’s just fascinating to observe the differences and commonalities between our two systems.  Today was especially fun because we got to learn from a professional. Our guide is a criminal solicitor. As we walked the streets of legal London today, I kept thinking about the differences between our legal system and Britain’s. My final paper in this class will take on a comparative study of modern legal education in America and Britain. Today’s literally on-the-ground learning added an invaluable layer to my research. And as we meet with practicing barristers and solicitors later this week, that will continue to be true. I love London. It’s one of my favorite cities in the world. As an aspiring lawyer, I hope I’ll have the chance to work for clients who might have needs in Britain. It would be incredibly educational to team up with British colleagues. I get the feeling there’s a lot to learn.

Stroud ’14 Explores London Tower

Patrick Stroud ’14 – Amid the aged rocks–some imported from France–blackened fire pits, and tales of noble violence that comprise the Beauchamp Tower, there rests countless names carved into stone and mortar.  These signatures, quotes of Biblical verses, and other messages stand as the only remnants of the some 3500 prisoners that were housed within Her Majesty’s Palace and Fortress, also known as the Tower of London.  A chill runs through the spine at the sight of these departing prayers, or even more haunting: nothing more than a first name, a forgotten remembrance for an oft-forgotten “guest.”

Stroud, second from left, and classmates.

This is but one scene of centuries of English legal history, and only one evocative sight within the Tower.  As a continuation of yesterday’s exploration of the Norman conquest vis-a-vis Hastings, our travels moved on to the things later built by William I after his ascension to the throne of England.  The White Tower of the Tower of London stands to this day as the most famous (or infamous) example of invading Norman architecture, a nine-hundred year amalgamation of royal construction that has produced the 18-acre complex that tourists visit today, with guided visits provided by the Beefeaters, Yeoman Warder guards wearing uniforms from the time of Henry VII and sporting trademark British military crassness.

Although visitors and guides often focus on the penitentiary aspects of the Tower, its history is much more complex.  Originally built as a Norman fortress against rebelling Anglo-Saxons, the Tower has served as a royal home, an observatory, a mint, a treasury, an armory for the Crown Jewels, an arsenal, and–an important fact for our course–the site for the King’s Bench and the Royal Courts of Justice, but was never officially a prison. All monarchs of England lived within the complex until the time of James I, and it was also custom for any prince or princess to process between the Tower and Westminster for one’s coronation.  Additionally, despite our positivist frame values when it comes to a historical progression, the century with the most executions in the Tower was the 20th.

The “white” of the White Tower, the central building, is derived from the white Norman stone imported to build the fortress, though it was later whitewashed.  It was here that William the Conqueror (née Bastard) lived from around 1070 until his death; this time also begins the long story of legal prosecution within the Tower, with the first prisoner being Ralph de Flambard, a bishop with ties to the construction of the complex itself.

While the cells have ceased their use since 1941, echoes of legend still haunt the halls of the complex.  Grim nicknames for buildings still exist: the Traitor’s Gate, named after the point of entry for many royal guests who would never leave their accommodations alive, including Anne Boleyn, Sir Thomas More, Oliver Cromwell, and Sir Walter Raleigh; the Bloody Tower, with its ongoing conspiracy surrounding the Young Princes, the sons of Edward IV who were mysteriously murdered, potentially by their uncle Richard III (at least, Shakespeare would have you believe so); and much more.  Guy Fawkes of the Gunpowder Plot was left to rot here, as well as the noble Lady Jane Grey, a teenager caught in the crossroads of royal legitimacy who served as Queen for just nine days.

Yet, despite all this, the Tower presses on.  As it is still labeled a Royal Palace, Queen Elizabeth II still has her private mansion within the complex, located next to houses reserved for the Yeoman Warders and their families.  Church services are held every Sunday within the chapels of the Tower.  Young students feed crisps to the Tower Ravens, the mythical birds who are said to predict the death of the monarchy should they ever fly away (don’t worry–their wings are clipped).

And, most of all, people are laughing, smiling, and taking in awe this auspicious place, appreciating the grim tales of bloody treachery, sneaking photographs of the Crowns and Scepters, smirking at the dry wit of the Beefeaters, and much more.  This is the new legacy of the Tower: a place where people come to realize legal oppression, to take murder as a matter of fact, and to beyond nine hundred years of dirty dealings as a means of coping and as a means of black humor that is educational yet tongue-in-cheek.

If only Yanks did this; why revere slaveholders and criminals yet remain ignorant of their faults, and instead take our atrocities to heart and laugh at their ridiculousness?  At the very least, that’s been our “modus operandi” for our course: to notice the role of history in law (or vice versa) as a trend and to laugh at its blatant inconsistency!  That idea, that task, gives us analytical purpose daily, and without it, we would flounder at the foot of the monolith that is “Legal Precedent.”

So, grab some fish and chips, have a pint, and help us laugh at history-in-law and the inherent values it presents, analyzes, and morphs.  You’ll end up coming out with it with much more than legal knowledge.

Looking Back at Hastings’ Visit

Rob Dyer ’13 – William the Conqueror (who then was known by the slightly less-prestigious appellation “the Bastard”) made landfall at Hastings several weeks later than he anticipated, which most historians attribute to unfavorable winds. It was fitting that our arrival was delayed as well, first by a series of mishaps on our train ride from London and then by a bungled bus commute from the station, which together consumed almost half of our first full day in the United Kingdom.  The long hours spent on immobile vehicles, however, no longer mattered once we set foot on the location where, on 14 October 1066, William and his Norman subjects defeated King Harold Godwinson of England in one of history’s decisive battles.

We received a guided tour of the battlefield, which lies about six miles northwest of Hastings in a town aptly named “Battle.” One of our professors for the class, Dr. Morillo, is one of the world’s experts on the Battle of Hastings. While at Wabash we are accustomed to student discussions, we relished the opportunity to listen to a lecture from someone truly passionate about the events that happened on Senlac Hill (“bloody” hill in the Norman language), where we occupied the position once defended by the English, copses of trees fortifying our flanks as they had done in the battle.

The battle more-or-less secured the English crown for William, whom the Pope had blessed to claim the throne instead of Harold.  As penance for the soldiers killed at the battle, the Pope ordered William to construct an Abbey on the site, which now sits mostly in ruin. The main altar, while it stood, marked the location where Harold was believed to be killed atop Senlac Hill.   There is now a limestone memorial in the ground, where, on the anniversary of the battle, the English leave flowers and a pint of beer in memory of the fallen king.

When William ascended the throne, he retained most of the English legal system, despite replacing the ruling class with his own Norman nobles.  It was at this point in history that we began our study of the common law in our classroom and set off our immersion experience in England.  As the week progresses, we will continue forward through history in the courts and halls which housed the evolution of the common law, thankful at every step for the immersion experience Wabash has provided us.