Effectiveness of Law Enforcement in Localities During Henry III

How effective was law enforcement in the localities during the reign of Henry III?
The crown pleas of the Berkshire Eyre of 1248.
6AAH3006 Reform & Rebellion in England 1215-1267 (Dissertation)
Word count: 10,910 Enrique Requero
How effective was law enforcement in the localities during the reign of Henry III? The crown pleas of the Berkshire Eyre of 1248 .
Enrique Requero
On 16th August 1261, Henry III issued a Royal letter to all the counties of England, seeking to foster alliances in the localities so as to strengthen his opposition to the Council of Fifteen formed by some of the great barons.1 The document, published in English, is a fine example of early political propaganda. The King starts by expressing his greatly disturbed estate at the attempts by some wicked disturbers [the barons on Montforts side] of the tranquillity of ourselves and our kingdom... [who] struggle to diminish the devotion of our faithful men and people and to turn their hearts from us. Henry III justified his position by arguing that in the forty-five years of his reign he had not ceased to study and labour for the tranquillity and peace of all and everyone with all our desire and all our strength through ourselves and our servants. The letter contrasts the spiritual (papal interdict) and temporal (civil war) evils of King Johns reign with the tranquillity and peace that had apparently characterized Henrys. The King denied the main grievances that had been upheld against him by the barons in 1258 (breaches of Magna Carta in terms of violation of rights and property, and the introduction of foreigners into the realm and their enrichment, to the detriment of the natives). After asserting the righteousness of his rule, Henry concluded by urging everyone to be faithful to him, namely through their support of the local officials appointed by him so that they may be able to give you justice. Among all the elements that compose Henry IIIs plea for support in this letter, the special emphasis that he makes on his having granted peace and justice to everyone in the
Full text in Rymer (1816), pp.408-9
Enrique Requero
kingdom is of particular significance. This claim clearly echoes the promises made in the coronation oath, in which Henry swore to put down evil-doing and to judge justly and mercifully so that all might enjoy firm peace.2 Henry was now seeking support by arguing that he had stuck to his coronation oath throughout his reign. It is true that, apart from some Welsh incursions into English territory,3 overall, throughout Henrys reign, the inhabitants of England had been spared the pains that wars inflict on populations. The granting of justice was a different matter. The barons demanded with the Paper Constitution of 1244 that a justiciar should be appointed so as to ensure that justice was done to all (there had not been any since Stephen de Segrave was removed from the post in 1234).4 The magnates often complained to the King about denials of justice, with renowned instances such as Henrys refusal to accede to the demands of justice brought by John fitz Geoffrey against one of the Kings half-brothers. Aymer de Lusignan, a foreigner and bishop-elect of Winchester, had attacked fitz Geoffreys church of Shere and killed one of his servants.5 It was events such as this which increased tensions between the native barons and the Lusignans, eventually triggering the revolt of 1258.6 Indeed, the conflict of interests which inundated court politics could account for this apparent lack of justice in Henrys reign. Even if some injustices were committed in the context of court politics (and to understand them one only has to imagine Henry trying to mediate between Lusignans and natives, both quarrelling against each other continuously), still this did not necessarily mean that injustice was widespread in the realm. It is important to distinguish between the way justice was conducted among common people at local level, and the way it was conducted in the context of high
2 3
Meekings (1960), p.3 Giles (1889), p.202 4 Paris, Chronica Majora, Luard (ed.), IV, pp.366-8 5 Giles, p.296 6 Paris, pp.267-9
Enrique Requero
politics at court.7 In the 1261 letter, Henry made it clear that he had granted justice to everyone and not just to a few, because it was to the whole community of the realm that the letter was addressed to. This essay will assess the extent and means by which the rule of law was made effective in the England of Henry III. For this, the essay will firstly analyze briefly the main elements which characterized law enforcement at local level during Henrys reign. The central part of the essay will focus on the practical assessment of the main aspects of law enforcement, taking as a case study the crown pleas of the Berkshire eyre of 1248, conducted by the itinerant justice Roger de Thirkleby. It will be shown towards the end how, with the Provisions of Westminster, the barons addressed some the main grievances that arose in the localities throughout Henrys reign regarding justice implementation. These grievances, nonetheless, were not prompted by negligence in enforcing law but rather by the efficiency which it was enforced. Although some reforms were indeed needed, as the case of Berkshire will show, the eyre system satisfactorily ensured that justice was granted.
The system of justice
The thirteenth-century structure of law enforcement was continuously subjected to reforms. Magna Carta, for instance, was first issued by John in 1215 and reissued by Henry in 1217 and 1225. The charter was highly significant in legal terms, since it granted a series of rights and liberties to be kept in our realm of England for ever,8 and stipulated directives about the specific way law should be applied.
7 8
Turner (1968) Magna Carta 1225, in Hennings (1924), p.149, especially Clause 29
Enrique Requero
Although the knowledge of aspects of the Charter such as the granting of liberties spread out rapidly in society, others took slightly longer to become widely known. Henry, for instance, wrote to the Sheriff of Lincoln in 1234 that he had heard that you and your bailiffs (...) do not understand how hundreds and wapentakes ought to be held in your county. 9 The King then reminded the official that Magna Carta stipulated that sheriff tourns were to be taken through the hundreds only twice a year, after Easter and Michaelmas, and that hundreds and wapentakes were to be held every three weeks in between the two tourns.10 Reforms in the legal system also resulted from external influences. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, for example, banned the use of ordeals as a method of proof for the resolution of criminal cases. Despite the initial confusion the ban led to,11 it was decisive in granting the English legal system with one of its most renowned features. While the rest of Europe turned to torture as the new method to resolve difficult cases by extracting confessions,12 it became common in England instead to use trial by jury. The use of trial by jury was an effective way of getting ordinary freeholders involved in law enforcement. They were not the only ones, however. Henry III reminded the men of Hampshire that the King was but a single man, who neither wishes nor is able to bear the burden of his kingdom without help.13 Responsibility for carrying this burden was officially delegated to the justices, who granted justice to all in the name of the King.14 Nonetheless, law enforcement in the thirteenth-century also relied on each community of the realm taking responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law in their territory, and the system was devised so as to ensure that they did.
9
Hennings, pp.192-3 Magna Carta, clause 35 11 Instructions to itinerant justices on how to resolve difficult cases without ordeals, in Hennings, pp.183-4 12 Peters (1996), pp.40-73 13 Quoted in Meekings, p.3 14 A letter from some justices in 1219 read: we are but men of moderate discretion, lacking the great mental faculties adequate for the undertaking of so great a burden. Hennings, pp.181-2
10
Enrique Requero
At local level this was done through the system of frankpledge and the watch. All unfree men over twelve were made put in groups of ten or more, known as tithings.15 In the oath taken before entering into a tithing, prospective members swore to report any violation of the law carried out by any of the other men in their tithing.16 Failing to do so led to amercement in court. The use of frankpledge guaranteed that each member of the community was kept constantly under surveillance by his peers, who were accountable for the crimes of each other. The effectiveness of frankpledge was facilitated by the close-knit societies which the small early twelfth-century population formed. Nonetheless, a high rate of population growth since the 1080s meant that the eyre system would become obsolete by the 1290s.17 Summerson argues that this system was based on exclusion, because for it to function satisfactorily, outsiders had to be kept out of the community or under extreme control. This was because strangers did not belong to the local tithings that could watch on them, or because they could be outlaws or abjurers.18 So as to keep strangers away, all communities of the realm were made to keep four armed men on watch every night during the summer, when there was an increased likelihood of strangers especially vagrants coming into the towns.19 The hue was to be raised, by shouting or blowing a horn, whenever a stranger was spotted during the watch. The hue was a call to arms for the community, and on hearing it strangers were to be pursued with cry and hue from township to township until they are taken.20 This gives an idea of how exacting the legal system could be on individuals and communities, demanding for them to be always ready to pursue outsiders. Once the stranger was caught, he was to be kept by the community under control, for not more than one day. Each individual was
15 16
Summerson (1979), p.316 Full text in Hennings, p.196 17 Carpenter (2004), pp.31-2 18 Summerson (1996), p.121 19 Summerson (1979), p.321 20 Methods by which watch and ward are to be kept, in Hennings, p.197-200
Enrique Requero
also expected to raise the hue whenever he or she witnessed a crime or found a dead body. Communities were made to account for every hue and to give explanations when a crime had been committed and the hue had not been raised. The use of frankpledge, watch and hue was intended to ensure that each individual and community took responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law. The authorities made sure that everyone was keeping his legal obligations by monitoring each community in the different courts. Hundred courts were held fortnightly, sheriff tourns every six months and county courts every four weeks. Representatives of vills and tithings presented to the officials in each court the details of all crimes, violence and hue raisings that had taken place in the community since the previous court met.21 This was another aspect of the legal system under Henry III which Summerson termed publicity.22 Presentments brought to the hundred courts were transmitted to the higher courts. Thus, the system enabled everyone in the county (and often in neighbouring counties too, as some cases in Berkshire show) to learn relatively quickly about the details of crimes that had taken place in each hundred. The publicity that was made of crimes meant that the effectiveness of the system should not be assessed according to the number of arrests and hangings carried out, but rather according to the number of outlawries and abjurations that took place in each county. The lack of fast communications at the time severely hindered the capacity to arrest felons. Nonetheless, the closed nature of communities, the exclusion of strangers and the publicity that was given in courts to outlawries and abjurations made them in effect satisfactory punishments for runaway criminals, who had to stay away from any law-abiding community.
21 22
Summerson (1979), p.318 Ibid, p.324
Enrique Requero
The 1248 Berkshire eyre and the eyre roll
Eyre courts were the apex of the law enforcement system.23 The way they were held was consolidated by the 1240s, and until they were finally abolished in 1294 their function was to gauge the extent to which communities in a county had fulfilled their legal duties since the last eyre, and to impose financial sanctions amercements to guarantee they continued doing so in the future.24 The practice of multiple presentments25 meant that all presentments made at previous courts within the county were eventually brought to the eyre. Thus, eyre rolls are highly valuable for historians because they record the levels of violence and crime (mainly homicides) at the time and reflect the attitudes of local officials and communities in curbing breaches of the law.26 Eyres of common pleas (as opposed to forest eyres) were royal courts held by the Kings justices.27 They were meant to make the monarchs justice dispensed at the Bench in Westminster available to all who could not afford to travel to the centre of the realm. Eyres brought the Kings justice to the localities. Until 1249 the Bench was usually suspended while eyre visitations were taking place.28 Hence, eyres were also known as the Bench itinerant.29 Eyres took place in each county every few years as part of country-wide visitation tours. However, none of the 15 visitations between 1198 and 1294 managed to hold courts in all counties. Those left out were visited in between eyres by justices in smaller tours. That 9 out of
23 24
Summerson (1996), p.139 Summerson (1979), p.326 25 Summerson (1996), p.130 26 Meekings, p.8 27 The term 'general eyre' is modern; they were known to contemporaries as eyres 'for common pleas' or 'for all pleas'. General eyres 1194-1348, The National Archives, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/researchguides/general-eyres.htm, accessed 15/4/2011 28 Clanchy (1972), p.xix 29 Meekings, pp.1-3
Enrique Requero
9
Map by G.Cole, J.Roper for publication in The Beauties Of England And Wales (1804) http://www.jpmaps.co.uk/mapimages/originals/35888.jpg [accessed 28 Feb 2011]
Enrique Requero
15 country-wide eyre visitations were carried out under Henry says a lot about how much justice was made available during his reign.30 During his 1246-1249 circuit, Roger of Thirkleby held eyres in twenty-two different counties, Berkshire being among them.31 William of York held the previous eyre in Berkshire in 1241 and the Bench itinerant would not return to the county until 1252 with Simon of Walton. Twelve eyres were held in Berkshire in 1219-1284.32 Until 1258, this was done on average every 5.14 years. While the Council of Fifteen was in power in 1258-1261, eyres were held annually in the county. Solomon of Rochester held the last Berkshire eyre in 1284. These figures show that, in Berkshire at least, for almost 70 years the King provided justice through his officials on a regular basis. Presentments brought to each eyre were thus periodical accounts of the state of affairs in Berkshire for the previous lustre. The volume used for this study is an edition by Michael Clanchy of the plea roll and the writ file produced during the Berkshire eyre of 1248. The writ file (items a1-a231) is a collection of original writs (issued to originate litigation in the eyre) and judicial writs (those issued by the judges during the course of the litigation to enforce a judgement). 33 All writs were issued in the Kings name. Appendix 1 shows who was appointed as executor of writs in each bailiwick usually the sheriff within the Kings lands or the lord of the land within liberties. The plea roll is subdivided into civil pleas [1-461] which dealt with civil law cases; foreign pleas [461-683], in which the matter in question was not judged because it was originated in a different county;34 and crown pleas [684-1051]. Crown pleas, on which this essay focuses, record cases judged under criminal law, that is, deaths caused by criminality or misadventure, miscellaneous crimes, indictments on suspicions
30 31
Meekings, pp.9-10 Clanchy, pp.xcviii-xcix 32 Ibid, pp.xciii-xcvii 33 Ibid, p.lxii. 34 Tomlis & Granger (1835), foreign plea
10
Enrique Requero
of felony, non-criminal matters concerning the Kings rights and enquiries under various articles of eyre. The crown pleas in the roll are divided into a number of subsections which amount for the 33 different presenting areas in 1248 as shown in Appendix 1. These were at the same time grouped into twelve bailiwicks, which were areas over which different bailiffs were entrusted for the execution of writs. The executor of writs was the person with the right to appoint the bailiffs who were to collect the profits from amercements imposed in the eyre. In Appendix 1, where the executor is the sheriff, it means that the King was the lord of that land, although Simon de Montfort was lord of Hungerford and Newbury (the executor of writs there was still the royal sheriff). Franchises or liberties were those bailiwicks in which the bailiffs for the execution of writs were appointed by the lord of the land. Royal authority had been delegated to these lords, allowing them to execute royal writs through their own bailiffs, as opposed to those appointed by the sheriff. The King granted in [412,413] the Abbots of Reading and Beulieu the profits of royal justice from their lands. Clanchy believes that the prior of Curley and Richard of Cornwall were also allowed the amercements arising from their territories.35 He further argues that high franchises did not threaten royal authority since they were given to the Kings relatives or his close allies. Political danger came from less prominent territories.36 Simon de Montfort, for instance, is reported in [756] as refusing to allow the Kings bailiffs to enter the vill of Hungerford to make distraints of the Kings debts. Figure 1, which I constructed by processing data provided by Clanchy (see note on chart), shows the number of crown pleas presented from each bailiwick and the percentage of their contribution to the total number of pleas presented in 1248 (331 crown pleas). Since most pleas led to amercements imposed on the different parties involved, figure 1 reflects the profits that the
35 36
Clanchy, p.xxxv. Ibid., pp.xxviii-xxix.
11
Enrique Requero
eyre produced in each bailiwick, establishing Windsor as the most profitable. The profits from Reading bailiwick went to the Abbot, and the large number of pleas presented from there is explained by the large number of parishes which formed each of its presenting areas, and also because the main session of the eyre was held in Reading, which was one of the major townships of the county.37
When comparing Windsor with Reading by presenting areas, as shown in figure 2, it is interesting to see that although Windsor bailiwick was composed of more presenting areas, none of those presented more pleas than any of the presenting areas of Reading bailiwick. The individual territorial units which presented most crown pleas were Hormer and Wantage hundreds. Both were large hundreds: Hormer had 12 parishes and Wantage 9. Most pleas were
37
Ditchfield & Page (1923), vol.3,p.275.
12
Enrique Requero
presentments and indictments of crimes, usually homicides (11 in Hormer, 6 in Wantage), larcenies (10 in Hormer, 7 in Wantage) or a combination of both. This might be explained by their proximity to Oxfordshire, which increased the likelihood of strangers wandering across the county boundary. Hormer and Wantage, together with Sonning (also bordering Oxfordshire),38 were in 1248 the hundreds in which most crimes were recorded as committed by outsiders.
38
Ibid, vol.3,pp.198-9;vol.4,pp.267-8,391-2
13
Enrique Requero
Juries and indictments
When the session of the eyre opened on the Morrow of Trinity [15 June],39 the bailiffs of each presenting area nominated two men as electors for each district. These men then designated another 10 jurors, each jury being thus composed of 12 jurors. Pleas [684-716] of the roll form the kalendar, in which all presenting areas, their bailiffs and juries are listed. In [686], the name of the twelfth juror for Blewbury (Nicholas Waleys) lacks the annotation jur next to it. This annotation was used by eyre clerks to check in the jurors as they arrived, which means that Waleys did not attend and was most likely amerced for it.40 In Newbury, four jurors did not get their names ticked.41 In the lists for Kintbury and Reading/Theale the name of a twelfth juror is missing altogether.42 In Gorsatesfeld, Roborough, Egley, Compton, and Wantage,43 more than twelve jurors were elected. It was a common practice for bailiffs to get electors to summon more than the required number of jurors to ensure that all twelve places were covered. When this was done, the remaining jurors were not sworn and thus jur was not annotated next to their names.44 In the lists for Hungerford, Reading hundred intrinsecum, Reading vill and Wargrave,45 bailiffs were not named. Richard of Cornwall was lord of the hundred of Wargrave, which was under a special regime. The absence of bailiffs in Hungerford and Reading might be explained by the accusations made against Simon de Montfort and the Abbot of Reading during the eyre for not allowing royal bailiffs to enter their liberties to make distraints for the Kings debts.46
39 40
Clanchy, (plea) [717] Ibid., p.lxxxvi 41 [704] 42 [691],[707] 43 [689],[690],[692-3],[697],[700] 44 Clanchy, p.lxxxvii 45 [705-6],[708],[715] 46 [756],[981]
14
Enrique Requero
Jurors were freemen of substantial property, with sufficient standing and interest in affairs to be active in the business of the district.47 They were frequently of knightly status.48 After being elected, they took an oath and were given copies of the articles of eyre by which the crown pleas were to be held. Juries then withdrew to prepare their verdicts on presentments, which had to be delivered to court before the day in which their districts pleas were to be heard.49 Clerks assisting the justices usually introduced each plea with a short heading referring to the specific article under which the plea was heard. Clerks tended to omit introducing the heading for article 2 because it was virtually used for most criminal cases and pleas concerning deaths.50 219 out of 331 crown pleas presented were recorded without a heading. Appendix 2 has been constructed using the indexes for crown pleas provided by Clanchy and the description of the different articles of eyre available in Meekings pp.28-30. The appendix shows a list of all crown pleas heard under specific articles other than 2 or combined with it. The crown pleas of the 1248 Berkshire eyre show that family ties or the specific interests of the jurors or the community often came into play in the workings of juries. This is plain in an indictment made at Wantage.51 Three inhabitants of the hundred, Nicholas de Grave, Henry Herrodes and Alan son of Odo, were charged for the killings of a Ralph and Isabella of Barwell and of William and Alice of Boxford. The jury determined that the local men were not guilty and indicted William le Rus le Batur and Alice of Boxford (no relation) instead. These had fled and were thus outlawed and waived. It was not possible to determine the chattels to be taken from them, because the accused turned out to be strangers to the community. Still in the same membrane, [835] tells us that four men were hanged at Oxford for the death of Ralph of Barwell and of several men. So, although the jurors were right in declaring the first three accused not
47 48
Meekings, p.34 Clanchy, p.lxxxv 49 Ibid, p.27 50 Meekings, p.28. 51 [827]
15
Enrique Requero
guilty, that they put the blame on two innocent strangers may indicate that their intention was primarily to protect the members of their own community. Moreover, in [697] John son of Hugh de Grave appears as one of the jurors elected in Wantage. He was surely related to Nicholas de Grave, one of those acquitted by the jury. Juries taking part in this eyre were caught on thirty-five occasions trying to conceal details of cases (or whole cases altogether). Juries would conceal appeals, abjurations and some deaths so as to prevent their hundreds being fined with murdrum or amerced. Even when the case was brought to the fore, jurors frequently sought to diminish the cost for the community by falsely valuing chattels and deodands.52 Personal interests again came into play in concealments by juries. Maud, daughter of Robert ad Aquam, presented an appeal of felony for rape and got the appellee outlawed in the county court.53 However, she did not attend the eyre, for which she and her sureties were to be amerced. One of the sureties was Robert ad Aquam, her father and also one of the jurors for Windsor vill.54 Robert convinced the other jurors to conceal the plea so as to avoid amercement and being publicly humiliated in front of the whole county again by hearing in court about his daughters rape. The justices eventually realised that this plea was in the county court roll but had not been presented in eyre. In fact, it was the last plea they dealt with in Windsor. The method of multiple presentments, it would appear from this episode, was an effective way for justices to ensure that communities performed their legal duties with honesty and got penalized when trying to bypass the system. Although individuals and communities were castigated by the justices when exposed abusing the system for their own benefit, there were instances in which the justices condoned certain interplay between the members of the communities and the system. This allowed local
52 53
[752],[796],[905],[947] [983] 54 [712]
16
Enrique Requero
agents to use the system to enforce their own understanding of justice, without bypassing it. This phenomenon is clearly visible in the 1248 Berkshire eyre roll with the indictments of suspects carried out by the juries. Before the juries were sent away to prepare their verdicts, the justices asked the jurors in private to report the names of anyone in their hundred who was suspected of any crime, so that they could be arrested and tried. Reports of names of suspects by juries were recorded as indictments, of which 51 were made in Berkshire. An extra 16 were made to supplement other presentments, mainly homicides, in which the gravity of the crime moved jurors to suggest the names of suspects if these were unknown. Most supplementary indictments resulted in hangings or outlawries. In all indictments, jurors charged someone suspected for a crime and different actions was taken depending on whether the attached came to court or not. Since the abolition of ordeals, sentences on indictments were passed after trial by jury. This enabled juries to use indictments as a device for warning first offenders and punishing recurrent ones. Juries declared not guilty on at least one of those indicted in 29 indictments. Almost all those absolved by juries in indictments had been accused of larceny. The only exceptions are one case of money changing and four homicides. Among the latter, plea [736] was declared a malicious indictment. In [804], the jurors backtracked upon seeing the defendants readiness to prove his innocence by requesting county-wide inquests in Berkshire and Wiltshire. For the homicides in [827] and [872], the jurors acquitted some of the indicted and those really thought guilty were outlawed after they fled. Regarding those found not guilty in indictments for larceny and money changing, the abundance of acquittals among jury verdicts is explained by the reluctance of people at the time to hang someone for what were seen as relatively minor offences. Nevertheless, the interesting thing about indictments is that in them juries were not just acquitting felons brought to them.
17
Enrique Requero
Jurors declared not guilty the very same people they themselves had accused.55 By indicting people suspected of larceny and other minor offences, juries implicitly issued warnings to the accused so that they would not relapse. The warning was implicit because according to the law, those felons had to be executed if found guilty. However, by declaring them not guilty (even if they were), jurors prevented justice from being applied to its full extent. Royal justices must have been fully aware of the general leniency juries had towards felons accused of minor offences. The intriguing fact though, is that while justices tended to be extremely strict in all that affected the crowns rights to profits of justice and thus amerced whenever it was possible, at the same time they had no choice but to allow juries to effectively pardon guilty felons who should by law have been hanged for their offences. Justices realised that executing felons for petty offences could lead to an unnecessary resentment against authority. Moreover, letting juries be merciful to felons also allowed for the promotion of neighbourly values upon which the whole legal system rested. Re-offenders for minor crimes were nonetheless castigated, as were serious offenders. 10 out of 17 hangings following from indictments in this eyre were of felons described by the jurors as suspected of several larcenies. The indicted in these cases already enjoyed a reputation as offenders in their hundreds, probably due to their names coming up in previous lower courts within the county; hence it was considered that they had already had their warning. Of the rest of hangings, 6 were for homicides. Many re-offenders, knowing what was in store for them if arrested, preferred to flee at once when indicted. This was the case with 16 indicted who were subsequently outlawed. Nine relapsed criminals were indicted and outlawed together in [991], implying that they were all part of a gang.
55
Allegedly, the juries that solved each case were different from the jury elected for the verdicts on the opening day of the eyre, although there is no documentary proof for this. Nonetheless, even if they were different juries, their members were from the same communities.
18
Enrique Requero
A significant number of persons indicted still fled despite not being suspected of previous crimes. Most of those fleeing had been indicted for homicides. In a number of other cases though, the outlawed had been accused of minor crimes such as larceny, but their sudden flight might have moved jurors to keep a thumb on them. On 10 occasions, nonetheless, although those indicted fled, the jurors still declared them not guilty and stated that they may return if they wished. These were again cases involving minor offences, except [872], in which of six men indicted for homicide, three were outlawed and three allowed to return. Although these runaways were not officially criminals, justices in Thirklebys circuits consistently declared that their chattels were still to be confiscated due to their flight.56 Records of indictments declared malicious by the justices show that eyre courts were occasions in which conflicts of interests and personal grievances were frequently manifested with individuals making false accusations against their enemies. Six indictments in this eyre are identified as originating in untruthful rumours.57 As was the case with pleas in which juries had attempted to conceal some or all the details, interesting coincidences appear when putting together the names of the jurors, the falsely accused and the accusers. Henry Sewal and William Leveliht, for instance, are charged in [843] with larceny. They, however, came and denied the charges. The jurors and the representatives of the four neighbouring vills where the crime had taken place stated that those men were not suspected and readily sa[id] that this charge was imputed to them from hatred and by John le Franceys of Drayton who was amerced for it. Interestingly enough, two of the jurors were also from Drayton58 and had probably been influenced by the accuser to bring false charges against the two men.
56 57
Meekings, p.97 [736],[788],[813],[843],[851],[954] 58 [685]
19
Enrique Requero
In [736], John Ingerby and Richard Baldwin from the vill of Lambourn, were charged with the death of Joan daughter of Gillian. Despite the gravity of the crime, the two were easily acquitted by the jurors of this hundred and the 12 jurors of Egley hundred, who declared that the charge had been made out of hatred by Ellis son of Alexander. The discharge is not that surprising when one realizes that both John and Richard had been elected as jurors for Lambourn.59 Maybe the difficulty of the case, with someone maliciously influencing the jury to indict two of its own jurors for homicide, made it necessary for Eglys jury to take part in the case. Unfortunately, more details about the case are not available, but the plea clearly denotes how the system of justice could be used for their own benefit by some individuals involved in conflicts of interests and private quarrels.
Appeals of felony
It was not only jurors and people of relative social standing who were able to influence the system to get away from convictions, or for their own benefit. Individuals of all types are shown in the crown pleas doing so, and this is most evident in the appeals of felony. These were actions brought to the inferior courts and then to eyres by private accusers (appellors) against one or more defendants (appellees). To make an appeal, appellors had to raise the hue immediately after the felony was committed. Then they had to make suit at the four nearest townships. From there, the appeal would go to the coroner and from the coroner to the county court. The appeal would then be brought to four meetings of the county court until the appellee was attached to present himself to the royal justices in eyre. Many appellors claimed that there had been a breach of the Kings peace only to ensure their cases got heard by royal justices. Appellors essentially
59
[703]
20
Enrique Requero
sought with the appeals to get the defendant convicted, outlawed, fined or at least to bring their case to a royal court so as to put pressure on the accused. Litigants would in this way try and settle quarrels in their favour and if not possible, at least to embarrass their enemies with the fuss.60 The relative easiness with which a person could demand justice from the King through appeals to his justices meant that more often than not small offences were exaggerated and breach of the Kings peace was alleged just to ensure that legal action was taken. For instance, of 32 jury verdicts on appeals, only in 9 was the appellee declared guilty,61 while in 13 the defendant was guilty of offences lesser than the ones he/she was accused of,62 or was declared not guilty altogether, as happened ten times.63 Frequently, the particular grievance was solved by the time of the eyre and appellors backtracked from their actions. Thirklebys justices ordered in 1248 the arrest of 11 appellors for defaulting (not coming to court with their appeals),64 and that 7 be taken into custody for withdrawing their appeals.65 In most of these cases the pleas do not provide any hints for the reasons that prompted the appellor to withdraw or default. Nonetheless, in some such as [883], the jurors declared that Peter of Baulking, who accused Andrew son of Thomas de Scaccario of breach of the peace and wounding, had withdrawn because he had made a compromise with the defendant. Details of the compromise are not provided, but we are told that Andrew later came to pay a fine for himself and for Peter. In [904], it was the appellor the one who after withdrawing, for some reason paid a fine for himself and the three appellees.
60 61
Meekings, pp.70-8 [727-8],[762-3],[883],[888],[918],[930-1] 62 [787],[816],[818],[848],[896],[904],[911],[930-1],[1007],[1030],[1034] 63 [810],[816],[849],[857],[869],[1006],[1023],[1031-3] 64 [727],[763],[816],[869],[911],[918],[1006],[1007],[1023],[1031],[1033] 65 [728],[848],[883],[899],[904],[930],[931]
21
Enrique Requero
If in many cases there were real grounds for an appeal but these were exaggerated, it is then not that surprising that many appeals were falsely made. There are nine such cases in the 1248 Berkshire eyre roll.66 In [728], Ralph Skir appealed three men of breach of the Kings peace, wounding and abetment. The first appellee fled and was outlawed. The other two were only fined for lesser offences and Ralph taken into custody for false appeal. The falsity of his appeal had been made evident when he demanded redress from the appellees for the offences. At the end of the plea we are told that Ralph was poor, perhaps implying that although Ralph had been offended, he had exaggerated the felonies so as to gain financial compensation through legal action. Ralphs case shows how justice was accessible to people of even the lowest social standing, although it will be shown below how it usually was the poorest who were convicted most often. Some appeals show that the poor were usually favoured because of their position. In [818], John son of Thomas Drayton appealed Reynold son of Peter and his brother Roger of robbery and abduction of a girl. The two brothers were also servants of Johns father, and they challenged the appeal arguing that there had not been such offences and that the appeal had not been brought following the customary process, since John had not raised the hue. The jury amerced the brothers for the abduction but still sided with the servants and fined John for false appeal. Melana, wife of Thomas Hasculf appealed Robert the tailor of Midgham for the death of her husband.67 She had only prosecuted Robert in two county courts and was told by the jury that she had to prosecute in a total of four as was customary, so as to get Robert outlawed. Instead of giving in, Melana dramatically begged that the King prosecute for the death because she was
66 67
[728],[787],[810],[818],[849],[896],[1030],[1032],[1034] [762]
22
Enrique Requero
poor. Strikingly, this declaration of poverty and the possibility of the King becoming prosecutor moved the jurors suddenly to forget the legal custom and declare Robert guilty and outlawed. The inferior social position of women in the middle ages is made evident by the way they participated in legal processes. Their differential treatment was grounded in the fact that women did not enjoy equal legal status.68 This is most visible in the civil pleas, in which female limitations to access or dispose of property are clear. However, the crown pleas reflect the fact that, though differences may have persisted in the way men and women appear in the records, they were in practice treated exactly as men were when they were prosecuted, as will be shown below. What is more puzzling however, is that although womens status outside the law implied that in theory they could not engage in the process by starting actions, some appeals testify that they were in fact allowed to do so. 48.8% of all appeals (43) were alleged by women. The justice William of York quashed a girls appeal for robbery in the 1241 Surrey Eyre because she cannot have an appeal save for the violation of her body or the death of her husband killed within her arms.69 This was still the case later in 1248 in Berkshire, and hence of all the appeals brought by women here, ten were for rape, seven for the death of the husband, two for the death of a brother and another two for battery and robbery. Of the latter, in [816] the appellor defaulted. In [1034], the appeal was quashed as false, but then the appellee was tried by jury and declared guilty of trespass only. The reason why such a limited number of types of offences were brought by women in appeals is, as Meekings explains, that there was a strong social pressure to limit a womans right to bring and appeal to the grounds which held less room for deceit. These were cases which hurt them most (rape) or in which it was essential that they made the appeal (homicide of a husband
68 69
Stewart (2006), p.cviii Quoted in Meekings, p.88
23
Enrique Requero
or a brother).70 The concern over potential deceit was due to the fact that women were favoured by the technicalities of the appeals process as they could not offer battle to support their appeals. Hence, the appellee always faced an ordeal and, from 1215, a trial by jury.71 The trouble with appeals by women is that because of their technical advantage, there was the danger of men getting women to falsely appeal enemies without the risk of any but the appellee getting hurt. In Reading vill, Aline appealed Ralph Lamb for rape and robbery. 72 The jurors, however, acquitted Ralph and committed Aline to gaol for false appeal. They also amerced John, Alines brother, because they declared he had used his sister to bring an accusation against Ralph out of hatred. It is significant that only four out of nine appeals declared false had been brought by women. Despite womens procedural advantage, attempts of abusing the system were detected as much in appeals brought by men. This shows that the recourse to appeal, mostly for rapes and homicides of husbands, although not only, was generally allowed to women even if the grounds for it were dubious. Their disadvantage, however, is still proved by the fact that almost half (9) of the appeals brought by women had been concealed by juries,73 while only two of those brought by men were concealed.74
Presentments of crime
Presentments of crimes recorded cases in which lower courts had already determined the course to be taken against the accused but which were brought from hundred courts to county courts and finally to the eyre. Presentments were passed from court to court so that a wider
70 71
Ibid. Meekings, p.78 72 [1032] 73 [775],[787],[810],[815],[888],[909],[983],[1020],[1023] 74 [750],[1045]
24
Enrique Requero
territory would be informed of the crimes that had taken place in the neighbouring localities. These allowed for a more effective enforcement of sentences since it increased the chances for outlaws and abjurers deviating from the Kings highway to be caught. Thus, outlawries and abjurations had a strong punitive value since the felons were forced to stay away from communities. Wherever they interacted with a community they usually did so as strangers and for that matter automatically seen with suspicion and put under surveillance. Roger of Cogges came from neighbouring Oxfordshire. Watchmen captured him in Hormer, as was their duty and it was established that the cow he was leading was stolen. Moreover, thanks to the system of multiple presentments, it did not take long to discover from the Oxfordshire coroners rolls that he had been outlawed. Roger was hanged.75 94 out of 331 crown pleas presented in Berkshire were presentments of crimes. 68% of the presentments were primarily concerned with homicides. A few of these stand out for their peculiarity or because of the persons who were involved or affected by them. Again in Hormer, Richard Russel abjured the realm after taking refuge in Hinksey church. He confessed to the killing in Oxford of Robert, the baker of Aymer de Lusignan.76 News of the killing of one of the servants of the Kings brother must have spread fast. The murderer run away to Berkshire but still there he realised that he had very few chances of escaping so he opted for banishment. Plea [945] records that Walter le Hune killed his wife Cecily and was hanged before Henry III in Reading. According to the Patent Rolls, Henry had been last in Reading in June 1247, when he granted Richard of Cornwall permission to mint money for England.77 Plea [934] records that Richard de la Pitte killed his wife in Bisham. The body was never found because he threw it into the Thames. As will be shown with the presentments of death by misadventure, it
75 76
[862] [854] 77 Cal. Patent Rolls 1232-47, p.503
25
Enrique Requero
was common for communities along the Thames to dispose of bodies in the river so as to conceal deaths from coroners. William, the clerk of Shrivenham, killed Hugh, the vicar of Coxwell, while he was sleeping. The bad relations between these two clerics of neighbouring parishes must have been of common knowledge: although William made himself the first finder, he was put into the Abbot of Beaulieus prison straight away. He escaped and was subsequently outlawed.78
Clerics
Religious men are involved in different ways in a significant number of cases throughout the pleas. Clerics are accused of homicides on at least four occasions. 79 Three women brought appeals against clerics for rape,80 and two men for robbery.81 In [1010], the Chaplain of Padworth is even accused of fishing with stake-nets and fish-traps, a direct contravention of Magna Carta.82 When brought to court, clerics usually claimed the benefit of clergy, which granted them the right to be tried in ecclesiastical courts.83 They still had to present themselves to the secular court first. On three occasions in which guilt was suspected, juries convicted the clerics with the backing of the judges, who argued that so that it may be known in what state he is delivered to [the ecclesiastical court concerned], the truth is to be inquired of the country.84 It seems that a certain dislike of clerical legal privileges moved jurors to act in this way. In Reading hundred forensicum, for instance, it was presented that a servant of the vicar of
78 79
[987] [737],[872],[987],[999] 80 [763],[868],[888] 81 [849],[1045] 82 Magna Carta 1225, clause 33 83 [763],[849],[888],[999] 84 [888]
26
Enrique Requero
Aldermarston and another man had killed Walter Shoithard at the vicars house.85 As if the flight and outlawry of the two felons had not been enough to clarify the guilt of the murder, the jury indicted John le Rus and William, the vicar. John was promptly acquitted as he presented himself to the jury. William presented himself but claimed that as a cleric he should not answer there. The Dean of Reading came, demanding to take William to the Bishop of Salisburys court. The jurors seemed not to like this and declared William guilty of the killing, and so he was to be delivered to the dean as convicted in this court. Most of the clerics accused in Berkshire, nonetheless, did not claim the benefit of clergy and took flight instead. They were all subsequently outlawed. None of them had chattels86 apart from Ralph the clerk of Guilford, who was imprisoned for larceny but later escaped and abjured the realm.87 Chattels worth 5 shillings 6 pence were confiscated from him.
Identity of felons: chattels and gender
The case of these poor clerics was not special. In fact, figure 3, constructed from my own analysis of the crown pleas presented to the eyre, shows that most of the convicted felons mentioned in the eyre roll were of low social status, since they either had no chattels or these were extremely low. All the studies on eyre records from this period reflect this pattern. Nevertheless, some interesting variations are patent when comparing figure 3 with a similar table provided by Stewart for the 1263 Surrey eyre.88 In the Surrey eyre, a larger number of convicted (133) had no chattels. The main difference between the two eyres is that in Surreys the largest chattels valued were of just over
85 86
[999] [737],[868],[872],[978], [987] 87 [961] 88 Stewart, p.lxxxii
27
Enrique Requero
40 shillings and were forfeited from only 4 convicts. In Berkshire, 4 convicts had chattels over 40s, but there are also a significant number of chattels valued over 50s.89
The largest chattels are valued in [835], at 15 marks, which belonged to Robert Dobus.90 He was hanged with three other men at Oxford. One of them, Thomas of Whatcomb, had chattels of 72s. The large size of these chattels and the fact that they were hanged for the death of Ralph of Barwell and of several men makes it most likely that the four hanged were part of the same gang. Reynold Ingerby had the second largest chattels in the roll (116.1s) confiscated after he killed the son of Phillip de Aqua by night and then abjured the realm. 91 The fact that one of the jurors in Lambourn vill (John Ingerby) was probably related to him makes it likely that Reynold was a freeman of substantial property. There are three instances in the roll in which chattels of 40-65s and another of 2s were redeemed through payment of fines.92
89 90
[722],[835],[864],[949] 199.5 shillings (http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/british_money.html, accessed 11/3/2011) 91 [722] 92 [755],[773],[959],[962]
28
Enrique Requero
Although in Berkshire chattels were confiscated in 1248 from a larger number of property holders than in Surrey in 1263, the general pattern is still valid, with the immense majority of felons having no property whatsoever. 18.2% of felons with no chattels were recorded in the pleas as vagrants, strangers or from other counties, which gives an idea of the sort of misery in which they surely lived. There were also eight felons whose chattels were not known since they did not belong to the communities in which they were convicted. The rapidly growing population in the period accounts for the increasing number of vagrants and this has moved academics to discuss the extent to which Britain was becoming an overcrowded island with rising levels of poverty and criminality.93 Another pattern which is repeated in both the 1248 Berkshire and the 1263 Surrey eyres is the sex of the accused. Figure 4, based on my analysis of the Berkshire crown pleas, illustrates the significant gap which existed between the numbers of men and women accused of homicides and stealing-related crimes. Frequently these accusations were combined (felons accused of more than one crime) and the graph refers to the number of individuals charged with the crimes, regardless of whether they were eventually convicted or not. An approximate idea of the actual number of felons convicted is suggested by the number of felons hanged or outlawed.
93
Carpenter (2004), pp.31-2
29
Enrique Requero
The different position women had in law enforcement is thus clear. Not only did they bring less actions to court in the form of appeals, but they were also charged on fewer occasions than men. No hanging of a woman is recorded in the eyre roll. The different legal status of men and women is made evident also in the terminology used to treat of them in the pleas. While men taking flight would be outlawed if thought guilty, women were waived instead. Bracton explained that women could not be out-lawed since they were already outside the law. Saying that women were waived meant that they were considered to be like waivium, that is, abandoned chattels or beasts. Women taking flight were thus regarded as abandoned by the King and the law, who would not protect them anymore.94 These legal distinctions between men and women were made evident mainly in the moment of demanding justice. However, once convicted, in actual practice there was no difference in the way men and women were treated.
94
Stewart, pp.cviii-cix
30
Enrique Requero
Presentments of death by misadventure, deodands and murdrum
9 of the deaths recorded in the crown pleas were enrolled as presentments of death by natural causes.95 Deaths classified thus usually followed the deceased falling sick. 41 crown pleas, on the other hand, were recorded as presentments of death by misadventure. Deaths of this type occurred due to a variety of causes which were not natural, but which at the same time could not be blamed on a particular person. The direct cause of 53.6% of the misadventures was the drowning of the deceased,96 although among these, on two instances, a capsizing cart was involved,97 and on a third, it was a shied horse on a ferry that pushed four grooms into the water. The commonest causes after drowning were people getting crushed by carts (5) or by mill wheels (4). The rest of the cases of misadventure were due to miscellaneous causes. In Wantage, Helewise died after the roof of her house collapsed. There as well, a bell clapper fell and killed the ringer. A little girl was savaged by a pig in Hildslawe. Isabel of Stratfield was found burned in Amfelice of Stratfields house in Reading out-hundred.98 The objects that caused the deaths were declared deodand (given to God) as a way of expressing conformity with the will of the Creator, who gave life and took it. Sheriffs were in charge of valuing the object in question. The quantity established would not form part of the profits of the eyre, but was however bestowed by royal authority on a charitable activity. 99 Twenty-three deodands are recorded in the eyre roll.
95 96
[749],[784],[824],[837],[838],[841],[910],[936],[1004] [746],[760],[819],[839],[874],[901],[920],[935],[942],[947],[948],[957],[967],[968],[985],[998],[1005],[1020],[10 21],[1046] 97 [880],[919] 98 [822],[829],[883],[994] 99 Meekings, p.67
31
Enrique Requero
Even dramatic situations like misadventures were used by royal justices to exact profits for the King. They usually did so with the imposition of the murdrum fine. Originated in Scandinavian and Frankish law, Canute introduced the fine of murder in England to protect his Danes. William the Conqueror used it to protect his Frenchmen and thereafter its use became customary in English law.100 The purpose of this fine, according to Bracton, was to punish communities for killings of strangers or known men in which only the murderer knew the details about the crime, so neither hue nor pursuit were possible. To avoid the heavy penalties, communities had to prove that the victim was English, for which it was necessary to ascertain who his/her relatives were. Justices, nonetheless, abused the system and imposed murdrum on communities whenever they could. Regarding deaths for misadventure in Berkshire, for example, an analysis of the pleas shows that hundreds were fined whenever a deodand was not available; that is, whenever the death had not been caused by an object or animal. In two pleas, the justices imposed murdrum on communities for the death of persons who had fallen sick, rather than declaring these as deaths by natural causes.101 Justices also fined hundreds and vills with murdrum for homicides recorded as presentments of crime. In 14 of these presentments of crime, murdrum was imposed for homicides even when the names of the killers were known, although these had fled and were outlawed. In three pleas the murderers were even hanged but the communities still fined. It seems from the pleas that the excuse justices tended to use in order to justify the fine was that at least one of the steps of the process meant to be followed had not been taken by those concerned, even if these steps were redundant in some cases; because it was only in these pleas that murdrum was imposed. To avoid the fine, the first finder of a dead body had to raise the hue. The
100 101
Ibid, p.63 [802],[820]
32
Enrique Requero
members of the four neighbouring vills then had to attend the inquest on the corpse conducted by the coroner. Finally, Englishry had to be presented for the deceased and if this was not possible because the person did not belong to the community, then murdrum was almost inevitable. As years went by and the population increased, avoiding murdrum became more difficult. Especially in the late 1250s, widespread famine meant an increasing number of vagrants wondering about and the corpses of strangers piled up in the streets. Already in the 1248 Berkshire eyre, there are attempts by local communities to obstruct justices use of murdrum, which was becoming more and more abusive. The neighbours of Sutton vill were amerced for trying to conceal the body of a stranger who had died of sickness by throwing it into the Thames.102 When the drowned body of a cleric was found in the waters of the Ock, two men took it from Hormer hundred into Sutton to shift the murdrum to their neighbours.103 In [746] and [879], vill and jury are amerced for burying corpses before coroners held inquests on the deaths. In Gorsatesfeld, William Godfrey was caught falsely presenting himself of Englishry [as relative] for John Cuchetey, who was found drowned in the Kennet.104 In four occasions, juries omitted details in pleas in order to conceal deaths from local officials and the justices.105
Amercements, abuses and the Provisions of Westminster
Murdrum was not the only financial punishment communities in thirteenth-century England faced as a consequence of law enforcement. The efficiency of the system relied on each individual performing his legal duties, and thus amercements were imposed by justices of eyre
102 103
[838] [839] 104 [760] 105 [945],[963],[977],[994]
33
Enrique Requero
whenever an aspect of the legal process was overlooked. If not hanged, outlawed or abjured, felons were amerced for their offences. The tithings they belonged to were also amerced for not preventing the crime. First finders of dead bodies were amerced if the hue was not raised, and whole communities too if they failed to answer the call and capture the offender. Entire townships could face fines when a body was found, if all men over twelve from the four nearest vills did not attend the coroners inquests. Likewise, communities were penalized if they did not attend hundred courts in full, as well as sheriff tourns and county courts. Anyone could be amerced if discovered concealing details of crimes and any type of death, or not presenting these cases to the different courts. The list of penalties that could be imposed is long, and it is difficult to find a crown plea in which nobody is put in mercy. Regarding the amercement of individuals, the system treated everyone equally. Figure 3 shows that the majority of people amerced were poor, since the poor were generally the most charged and convicted. Nonetheless, it also shows that people in more elevated positions were penalized as well. Local officials were amerced occasionally if the negligent performance of their duties obstructed the enforcement of the law. A coroner was amerced in Abingdon for failing to attach a bystander who witnessed a homicide committed by unknown persons. 106 The Sheriff and coroners were put to judgement in Kintbury because a death by misadventure did not figure in their rolls.107 Gilbert de Columbers, coroner in Hildslawe, was amerced for forcing a vagrant to abjure for stealing hens only.108 The bailiff of Windsor was amerced in Faringdon manor for several trespasses.109 A substantial amount of the great men of the land were amerced in 19 presenting areas under article 28 (De defaltis). Renowned personages such as Simon de Montfort, John de Plessis
106 107
[878] [745] 108 [891] 109 [976]
34
Enrique Requero
earl of Warwick, William de Ferers earl of Derby or the Abbot of Glastonbury, were amerced for failing to present themselves to the justices on the first day of the eyre sessions. Crown pleas were so called so because they dealt with infringements of the Kings proprietary and prerogative rights.110 The monarch had a right to financial compensation for these trespasses, both from the offenders and from those who through their negligence had facilitated the crime or jeopardized the administration of justice (i.e.: the exaction of financial compensation for the King). Eyres were essential for securing for the King the profits which arose from crown pleas. This was even more the case after Henry failed in subsequent parliaments during the 1230s to obtain grants for extraordinary taxation. By the 1240s, Henry III relied heavily on ensuring that his legal rights were honoured to the full in eyres so as to support himself financially. Widespread resentment in the localities followed. Matthew Paris saw the 1240-1 visitation circuit merely as an expedition to fill the Kings coffers with gold under the guise of administering justice. Indeed, profits from eyre courts increased throughout the 1240s.111 The 1241 Berkshire eyre produced 380 3s 8d for Henry, while in 1248 the sums amounted to 437 19s 8d.112 Distrust of the Kings justices, coupled with the general feeling that some occasions for amercements were either outmoded or exaggerated, was to have significant consequences for the system of eyre when the barons seized power in 1258.113 As part of a country-wide plan of political and administrative reforms, the baronial Council of Fifteen proclaimed in October 1259 the Provisions of Westminster, which entailed a series of legal resolutions.114 With these, the barons intended to curve what was perceived as a conglomerate of abuses inflicted by the crown in the way the law had been enforced over the
110 111
Meekings, p.3 Meekings, pp.6-8 112 Clanchy, p.xcv 113 Idem Meekings 114 Treharne (1973), pp.136-57
35
Enrique Requero
previous decades. It was established, for instance, that clergymen of different ranks and women were not required to attend the sheriffs tourns unless their presence was specially needed. Likewise, holders of property in different hundreds were only obliged to attend tourns in the hundred in which they resided. Thereafter townships were not to be amerced just because all men over twelve had not attended coroners inquests over deaths, provided that enough men [came] to enable such inquests to be made properly. Murdrum was not to be imposed for accidental or natural deaths any longer, but only for felonious slayings in which Englishry was not presented. Reasonable summons of fifteen days at least were to be given to lords who lived a long way from where the eyres were held, so that they could arrive in time to present themselves on the first day. Regarding the administrative side of law enforcement, more justices were to be appointed to travel throughout the land. According to the Provisions, sound and wise men would be chosen to receive and to ask for all complaints which can be determined without a writ, and would be given the power to inquire about the sheriffs and their bailiffs to see how they behaved towards the neighbourhood. These men would also inquire about the bailiffs of great men and about the great men themselves. Itinerant justices were granted the same powers as sheriffs during eyres and four knights were chosen in each county to review the wrongs committed by sheriffs. Finally, to prevent the corruption that followed from sheriffs staying in office for long periods, the justiciar, the treasurer, Roger de Thirkleby and others were to appoint sheriffs yearly, chosen from the vavassors of the same counties in which they were to serve the crown and the communities.
36
Enrique Requero
Conclusion
The reforms of local government and law enforcement introduced by the barons after 1258 could be considered as much of a propaganda stunt as Henry IIIs letter of 1261 to regain the favour of the community of the realm. While the King was accused by the barons of not having granted justice during his reign, there are instances in the 1248 Berkshire eyre in which one of the leading baronial reformers, Simon de Montfort, showed himself fully prepared to obstruct the law enforcement process for his own private benefit. Once de Montfort took the oath of alliance to the Provisions of Oxford, however, his attitude changed. Paris records a quarrel between Simon and Richard de Clare in which the former reproached the later for refusing to accept the Ordinance of the Barons,115 by which the magnates allowed royal officials in their lands to correct wrongs done by the barons bailiffs.116 Equally, Henry nullified the baronial reforms when he regained power, but re-established the Provisions of Westminster in 1263. Both men corrected their ways because they realised there was a real need to reform some aspects of local law enforcement, as well as identifying the emergence of a wider political community whose demands needed to be addressed. Nonetheless, that there were some aspects that needed to change does not necessarily imply that the whole system of law enforcement was inefficient. Its efficiency ought to be gauged by assessing the extent to which the different parties involved lived up to their legal responsibilities, because it is on this that the effectiveness or lack thereof of the whole system rested.
115 116
Paris, p.326 Treharne, pp.131-7.
37
Enrique Requero
From Henrys point of view, royal justices made available royal justice at least in Berkshire with a satisfactory periodicity if the limitations of transport and communications at the time are taken into account. The eyre system, moreover, was an effective device of law enforcement because it managed to carry out the function it was designed for. Thus, the 1248 Berkshire eyre shows how eyres were able to successfully monitor whether local communities were fulfilling their duties, and to penalise them when they were found not doing so. The overamercing of local communities could be used to argue that law enforcement under Henry was oppressive; but keeping in mind the function of eyre courts, over-amercing only followed from a rather too efficient justice implementation. The efficacy of law enforcement in the thirteenth-century localities ultimately depended more on communities and individuals than on the King. If justice was not done to victims of crime at the time it was because hues were not raised, vills did not attend inquests, tithings failed to bring forth felons in their midst, watchmen did not arrest strangers, juries concealed presentments, and so on. The function of the King in this respect was only to castigate local communities for their negligence; and this he did in Berkshire with the amercements justices imposed in the eyre court. Moreover, it could be said that the efficacy of law enforcement under Henry III lay not only in that it granted a great deal of responsibility to local elements to ensure that justice was done; but also in that it allowed for local communities to interact with the system and implement their own understanding of justice. Indictments were used by juries as a device to issue warnings to first offenders that would otherwise have been executed. The degree of interaction with the system allowed to local agents left room for some individuals to abuse the system for their own benefit, but the 1248 Berkshire eyre roll shows that false accusations, concealments and the like were frequently spotted by the justices.
38
Enrique Requero
The 1248 Berkshire eyre demonstrates that in terms of outlawries and abjurations, law enforcement under Henry III was reasonably efficacious. Taking on board Summersons ideas about the thirteenth-century justice system, although most felons got away from arrests and executions, outlawry and banishment were effective punishments. The close-knit nature of local communities at the time was complemented by the publicity function of the different courts. This meant that the 125 felons who were outlawed in the Berkshire eyre and the 26 who were abjured would have to stay away from any law-abiding community if they did not wish to join the 29 felons who were hanged. If the eyre system was eventually abolished in 1294, it was not due to a structural fault or to a need for reform. Population growths made it more difficult to exclude strangers from communities. At this point, outlaws and abjurers found it easier to pass unnoticed in new communities as frankpledge and the watch lost their efficacy to prevent crime. The hue, coroners inquests and Englishry then became futile means in communities in which no longer everyone knew each other. Ultimately, the eyre system became an inefficient method of law enforcement only when it could no longer rely on local communities to participate and support it.
39
Enrique Requero
40
Enrique Requero
41
Enrique Requero
Bibliography Primary sources Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office: Henry III, AD 12321247, 1258-1266, HMSO vols. 3 and 5 (1910) CLANCHY, M.T. (ed.) (1972), Roll and Writ File of the Berkshire Eyre 1248 (Selden Society, 90) GILES, J.A. (trans.) (1889), Matthew Paris's English History, From the Year 1235 to 1273, vol. 3 HENNINGS, M.A. (1924), England Under Henry III (various extracts) LUARD, H.R. (ed.) (1980), Flores Historiarum, 3 vols. (1890) LUARD, H.R. (ed.)(1874), Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora RYMER, T. (ed.) (1816), Foedera, revised by A. Clarke and F. Holbrooke, volume I TREHARNE, R.F. (ed.)(1973), Documents of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion 1258-1267 Secondary sources CARPENTER, D.A. (1996), The Reign of Henry III CARPENTER, D.A. (2004), The Struggle for Mastery. Britain 1066-1284 DITCHFIELD, P.H. & PAGE, W. (eds.) (1923), The Victoria History of the County of Berkshire, vols. 3 and 4 GIVEN, J.B. (1977), Society and Homicide in Thirteenth-Century England MADDICOTT, J.R. (1994), Simon de Montfort MEEKINGS, C.A.F. (ed.) (1960), Crown Pleas of the Wiltshire Eyre, Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Soc., Records Branch, xvi
42
Enrique Requero
PETERS, E. (1996), Torture STEWART, S. (ed.)(2006), The 1263 Surrey Eyre, Surrey Record Society, Vol. XL SUMMERSON, H.R.T. (1979), The Structure of Law Enforcement in ThirteenthCentury England, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 23, No. 4 SUMMERSON, H.R.T. (1996), Maitland and the Criminal Law in the Age of Bracton, History of the English Law. Centenary Essays on Pollock and Maitland (Proceedings of the British Academy, 89, 1996) TOMLIS, T.E. & GRANGER, T.C. (1835), The law-dictionary, explaining the rise, progress, and present state of the British law, Vol. 1 TREHARNE, R.F. (1972), The Baronial Plan of Reform, 1258-63 TURNER, R.V. (1968), The King and His Courts
43

Effectiveness of Law Enforcement in Localities During Henry III

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Effectiveness of Law Enforcement in Localities During Henry III

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

How effective was law enforcement in the localities during the reign of Henry III?

The crown pleas of the Berkshire Eyre of 1248.

6AAH3006 Reform & Rebellion in England 1215-1267 (Dissertation)

Word count: 10,910 Enrique Requero

Full text in Rymer (1816), pp.408-9

The system of justice

Summerson (1979), p.318 Ibid, p.324

The 1248 Berkshire eyre and the eyre roll

Clanchy, p.xxxv. Ibid., pp.xxviii-xxix.

Ditchfield & Page (1923), vol.3,p.275.

Juries and indictments

Meekings, p.34 Clanchy, p.lxxxv 49 Ibid, p.27 50 Meekings, p.28. 51 [827]

[752],[796],[905],[947] [983] 54 [712]

Meekings, p.97 [736],[788],[813],[843],[851],[954] 58 [685]

Stewart (2006), p.cviii Quoted in Meekings, p.88

Ibid. Meekings, p.78 72 [1032] 73 [775],[787],[810],[815],[888],[909],[983],[1020],[1023] 74 [750],[1045]

[862] [854] 77 Cal. Patent Rolls 1232-47, p.503

Identity of felons: chattels and gender

[999] [737],[868],[872],[978], [987] 87 [961] 88 Stewart, p.lxxxii

[722],[835],[864],[949] 199.5 shillings (http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/british_money.html, accessed 11/3/2011) 91 [722] 92 [755],[773],[959],[962]

Carpenter (2004), pp.31-2

Presentments of death by misadventure, deodands and murdrum

[749],[784],[824],[837],[838],[841],[910],[936],[1004] [746],[760],[819],[839],[874],[901],[920],[935],[942],[947],[948],[957],[967],[968],[985],[998],[1005],[1020],[10 21],[1046] 97 [880],[919] 98 [822],[829],[883],[994] 99 Meekings, p.67

Ibid, p.63 [802],[820]

Amercements, abuses and the Provisions of Westminster

[838] [839] 104 [760] 105 [945],[963],[977],[994]

[878] [745] 108 [891] 109 [976]

Paris, p.326 Treharne, pp.131-7.

Potrebbero piacerti anche