Graham, your sources are unreliable because common law has been a check upon legislation since the earliest written accounts of such things. It is an arrogance of certain agencies which continues the myth which you repeat above.

One of the sources is the early writings which are incorporated into the OT or Torah. For example 'an eye for an eye'. Sure, in English law some of these things were obscured to the peasantry by Latinising them, others corrupted, but that does not establish their source there. Put the matter this way, because the English use Tea does NOT show that they invented it.

I find the attempt to railroad the dependency of Taxation upon enfrancisment utterly repulsive and unacceptable. I say, as the early American Republicans also said, no taxation without representation. It is not that complicated a thing to understand.

BTW Sorry about my typing and editing, I have very bad eye sight these days.