Medieval England could be a violent and lawless place. The C12th saw law and order break down entirely during the civil war known as the Anarchy (1138 to 1153). The C13th saw two baronial wars, both of which heralded significant periods of lawlessness. The C14th saw a peasants’ revolt and the overthrow of two kings. And the C15th was blighted by a second major peasants’ revolt and the Wars of the Roses.
Even in more stable times, England was far from law abiding by modern standards. Banditry in certain parts of the country was virtually endemic, and England lacked a proper, professional, police force.
How, then, could law and order be maintained in such a society? Who was even responsible for enforcing the law and how was it enforced?
Crime and Punishment
The first thing to note about crime and punishment in medieval England is that people’s perception of crime was different from ours.
Medieval England was violent. Brawling and violent assaults were quite common but, providing no permanent serious injury or death ensued, a fine was often the only punishment. Attacking someone with a sword was treated no more seriously than selling ale without proper signage in one part of the country.
Property and land were the primary concerns of the ruling elite. Trespasses, poaching, theft and land disputes were therefore taken seriously. You could expect to be hanged for theft if you stole something valuable enough. Murder, of course, was a serious capital offence. Rapists could also face hanging or castration but, if a woman became pregnant following a rape, this was accepted as proof of consent.
People were kept in gaols to await trial for serious offences, but long-term imprisonment was rarely used as a punishment. Penalties such as fines, pillorying, floggings, mutilation and, in the most serious cases, hanging, were used in preference to imprisonment.
Tithings
Since medieval England lacked a professional police force, the system for detecting crime and to bring criminals to justice was crude. Community self-policing was the order of the day.
The majority of common folk consisted of feudal serfs, known as villeins, tied to working their lord’s land. All such people were enrolled into a tithing at the age of 12. This was a group of around 10 people (although it could easily be more). One of them would be appointed as the chief tithing man. This group would be expected to ensure the good behaviour of their fellow tithing-men. If any member of the tithing was guilty of some offense or other, it was their duty to report it. Should they fail to do so, the tithing might face collective punishment (often that meant fines). The chief tithing man would be expected to speak on behalf of the tithing, report crimes and lead his tithing in any hue and cry.
Since most people were not especially mobile, members of a tithing would be very familiar with their community. Everyone knew who was trustworthy and honest and who was of poor character. Without this communal familiarity, the self-policing role of the tithings would have been impossible.
Constables
From around the middle of the C13th, villages and towns began appointing constables. Should a tithing become aware of a crime or the whereabouts of a suspected criminal, it was the chief tithing man’s duty to report the matter to the constable.
Constables were appointed for a year and selected from amongst the more respectable citizens in a village or town. The role was unpaid and very much part-time. These were simply local people whom, it was thought, would do a good job. They received no training of any kind. Should a crime be committed or if a criminal was known to be on the loose in the area, it was the constable’s responsibility to co-ordinate a ‘hue and cry’ to track down the guilty party. Any citizen who witnessed a crime could raise a hue and cry. Indeed, if they failed to do so, they could be punished.
If a criminal was apprehended or if a crime was reported, the constable would inform the bailiff of their local area. The bailiff was responsible for all the constables falling within their administrative district, known as the hundred. These districts were regional sub-divisions of a shire (county). So, for example, Leicestershire had six hundreds, whereas medieval Devon (which was three times the size of Leicestershire) had 32.
The Bailiffs
In Saxon and Norman times, bailiffs had been known as reeves. However, as the Middle Ages wore on, they gradually acquired the more familiar title that we still use today.
The bailiff was responsible for co-ordinating the constables within his hundred. He was also responsible for executing rulings made by manorial or hundred courts, or writs passed onto him by his sheriff.
Unlike the constables, the bailiffs could only be appointed from amongst freemen. Thus villeins, tied to their lord’s land, would not qualify for the position. Also, unlike constables, bailiffs received a salary for their work.
A manorial bailiff’s responsibilities were often far broader than law enforcement – they mainly served as an estate manager for the local lord. A court bailiff’s duties, on the other hand, were more focused on legal business (serving legal papers, collecting fines, apprehending felons etc).
Manorial bailiffs were appointed by the lord of the manor. Most likely he would be a yeoman, or perhaps even one of the lord’s younger sons. Either way, he was his lord’s man.
Court bailiffs, by contrast, were appointed by the county sheriff. These men held power in the royal (rather than private) hundreds. In theory, they, and the sheriff they reported to, answered to the crown rather than any local lord.
The Sheriffs
The sheriffs derived their name from their old title Shire Reeve and were appointed, by the crown, from England’s elite.
The High Sheriffs of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the Royal Forests during the C13th, consisted of a long succession of elite citizens. These included many major landowners, a former steward of the king, barons, knights and even an archbishop. On very exceptional occasions a powerful woman (such as Lady Nicola de la Haie in King John’s reign) might come to hold the office.
Sheriffs had considerable responsibilities. Supervising bailiffs was only part of their role. They were the principal law officers in the county. It was their job to receive and execute all the royal writs. They were also responsible for maintaining the gaols. In times of war, they raised local soldiers to fight for the king, and organised clothing and feeding them. They also had to oversee the accounts for monies allocated to finance any such war effort.
In terms of executing the law, they were key. It was largely within their gift to decide who faced trial and who should not. Certainly, people couldn’t be easily brought to a trial at all without the sheriff’s co-operation.
Investigating Crime
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ability of these officers to investigate crime was seriously limited. The constables were part-time and untrained. Even the bailiffs and sheriffs had no formal training in investigative techniques – their only qualification was their social rank and reputation.
Unless someone was seen in the act of committing a crime, finding the guilty party could be a problem. Often blame was placed on visiting strangers, especially if they were poor or vagrant. People widely regarded by their community as being of poor character were likely to be scapegoated. Xenophobia, especially in the form of antisemitism, also played a role in likely miscarriages of justice.
Whilst many officers probably tried to ensure the right people were brought to justice, they did so in a context of limited resources, social prejudice, and rudimentary expertise.
Evading Justice
A hue and cry would not always succeed in apprehending a guilty party. It was also the case that those summoned to attend court would sometimes abscond. Those who habitually ignored court summons or evaded arrest would be declared outlaws. In the case of especially notorious criminals, the sheriff or one of his bailiffs might raise a posse comitatus. This, then, was the medieval origin of the famous posses of the American Wild West, and basically worked in much the same way. Should an outlaw be apprehended by a posse, the sheriff or one of his bailiffs could have the criminal executed on the spot. This was only legally possible because they had already been declared ‘outlaw’. The only restriction being that a coroner had to be present before any execution could proceed.
The Courts
Criminals and wrongdoers, once identified and apprehended, would normally be brought before the hundreds court in the initial instance. These courts sat every 3 weeks. If your offence was minor, you’d simply receive a summons to appear. If it was more serious you might find yourself incarcerated in gaol or clamped in the stocks whilst you awaited your hearing. The case would be heard before a jury of 12, organised by the bailiff. Petty offences could be dealt with in such courts, usually with minor fines. More serious matters would need to be heard by a senior court – the sheriff’s tourn.
The sheriff’s tourn would sit twice a year in each hundred. The tourn dealt with lesser offences such as brawling and unpaid debts directly. It had the power to issue far larger fines than the ordinary hundred courts. However, the tourn also had to decide whether any case was a trespass or felony harmful to the common good. This meant any serious crime, such as the theft of goods worth more than 12 pence, robbery, burglary, or murder.
Those indicted of a serious offence would be consigned to gaol by the tourn to await trial by a royal justice. If they were not rich enough to get bail, they might well have to languish in gaol for several months before their case was heard.
Royal Justice
Royal judges were trained legal experts, deemed qualified to try the more serious cases. These men were drawn from the ranks of the senior gentry, senior clergy and nobility. They were chosen by the king or his councillors to act as the senior arbiters of justice in the kingdom.
The judges visited the shires on a circuit (from which we get the term ‘circuit judges’). At the time this circuit was known as the general eyre. They would preside over the shire court and hear all the serious cases that had been piling up over the course of the previous months. These cases were tried by a jury and, if found guilty, the felon would be sentenced by the judge.
Royal judges would usually sentence guilty thieves and murderers to death. Life sentences were rare to non-existent. Unsurprisingly these judges were feared. One chronicle records that the eyre of Cornwall in 1233 inspired such terror in the local population that many men fled into the woods and hid.
Resources to try the more serious crimes were limited. You might well spend many months in gaol, before your case could be heard. One woman languished in Guildford gaol, charged with the theft of jewellery, for almost a year before coming to trial, only to be acquitted.
Ecclesiastical Courts
To complicate matters, the Church had its own ecclesiastical courts. These courts were there to pass judgement on internal church matters and police moral matters that were not considered the business of secular law.
People might be brought before such a court for such issues as drunkenness, swearing, trading on a Sunday, failure to pay tithes, non-attendance at church, defamation, moral indiscretions, practicing magic and heresies. The greatest proportion of cases related to alleged sexual immorality of various kinds. On most occasions the subject of the case was quite petty and the resulting punishment equally so. Minor fines and calls to do penance were the usual punishments handed out by these courts. More serious offenders might be whipped.
The practice of folk magic was very widespread in medieval England. There were no specific secular laws against witchcraft, so such issues fell within the purview of ecclesiastical courts. The typical penalty for practicing magic was a lengthy period of penance. It was not until the late medieval period that such activities started to be regarded more seriously. And, even then, serious punishment was unlikely except in a high-profile case or where heresy could be demonstrated.
The infamous witch trials and mass executions were a feature of the C16th and C17th, not medieval England.
Justices of the Peace
During the late Middle Ages (in the reign of Edward III), new officials called Justices of the Peace were appointed. These officials were tasked with assisting in delivering justice at a county level. Over time their office evolved into what we now call magistrates.
These justices came to serve a role adjunct to the sheriffs, presiding over the county courts. They took a lead in deciding who needed to face trial in a senior court and who could be dealt with at county level. Thus, the sheriffs were henceforward responsible for bringing people to trial and JPs for assessing their cases. The JPs did not have the power to pass sentence on serious cases such as murder. However, they had a big influence over the decision as to whether someone should stand trial for such crimes in the first place.
Senior Courts
In especially serious or complex cases, the matter was likely to be referred up to one of the senior Westminster Courts. Cases involving civil disputes between powerful members of the elite (often over land ownership) and serious crimes were likely to be heard in these courts. Judges from these courts could and did travel to the provinces to dispense justice locally in the eyre, but they also sat at Westminster.
The Court of Common Pleas could hear private litigation and disputes between the king’s subjects that did not concern the king. This became, in effect, the supreme court for civil law. The King’s Bench, on the other hand, dealt with disputes that involved the king. This made it the supreme court for judging criminal cases.
Courts of Equity
As the Middle Ages wore on, courts of equity emerged that provided potential alternative routes to justice. They were designed to cope with cases not covered by the common law or where the law was unclear. They acted with the king’s authority in his role as the custodian of the law of the land.
Two such routes involved being tried by the king’s council or by parliament. However, unless you were someone important, or involved with a high-profile case, it was highly unlikely you’d get your case heard in either of these courts. Trials in parliament often took the form of show trials, designed to bring high-profile figures suspected of corruption or treason to book. Trials in the king’s council were often initiated to bring a powerful, out of control, nobleman to heel. They might also serve as a means of arbitrating a dangerous dispute between powerful members of the elite.
The third court of equity was Chancery. This court operated under the authority of the Lord Chancellor, the king’s principal minister. Chancery became quite popular in the late Middle Ages, since it was often more flexible and processed its cases faster than other senior courts.
This, then, was how medieval justice generally worked…in theory. There were, of course, exceptions.
Exceptions
Of the 628 hundreds, 378 were under private manorial jurisdiction rather than under the direct jurisdiction of the crown. These hundreds had their own bailiffs appointed by the local lord. They reported to the lord’s steward or the lord himself rather than the sheriff. Many of these hundreds co-operated with the appointed sheriff in the usual way. Some, however, preferred to pass judgement under the lord’s authority rather than involve the sheriff.
Since manorial lords had sweeping powers within their own lands, their bailiff could hang a felon without involving a royal judge. They only needed to have a coroner present.
But this was not the only exception.
The City of London had rights granting its mayor permanent judicial authority. If a thief was caught, they could be brought to a London court and sentenced to death immediately on the authority of the mayor or his proxies. Furthermore, individual towns and cities might have their own unique local laws and customs.
All this meant that you could encounter slightly different laws, applied differently, in different parts of the country.
Corruption
Unfortunately, the whole system was very open to corruption. Important and wealthy people could evade justice by bribing key officials. Friends of the local sheriff or JP often received preferential treatment. If the sheriff was reluctant to arrest someone or refused to summon them to court, it became very hard to bring them to account at all.
Gaolers could also play a significant role in derailing the course of justice. They were ultimately responsible for prisoners but, if bribed, they would release or refuse to accept people in their gaols. A law of 1330 was passed specifically to curb this form of corruption.
Powerful, wealthy men accused of crimes could easily evade justice. The court system was slow, and these men could afford bail. It was not uncommon for them to simply refuse to turn up to court. They might be declared outlaws but for them this held few dangers. With the protection of a powerful local noble and their own armed retainers, it would be very difficult to force such people into court without the aid of a small army. Very often they simply delayed proceedings long enough to obtain a royal pardon.
The Case of James Andrew
James Andrew was a prominent member of East Anglian society. By profession, he was a lawyer. However, in the mid-1430s, Andrew became involved in an increasingly bitter legal dispute with a certain Richard Steresacre. The argument was over land ownership in the Baylham estates. Things took an ugly turn when Steresacre enlisted the aid of a group of men who made violent threats of against Andrew.
In July 1434 a gang of hired thugs ambushed Andrew and beat him up. They may not have intended to kill him but, whatever their intent, the old man died.
Court records show that in addition to those directly involved, several influential local men were accused of organising the attack. These included Sir Robert Wingfield, William Thornham and Gilbert Debenham. All three were close associates and retainers of the powerful Duke of Norfolk.
When John Edward, the Alderman of Bury, attempted to arrest Wingfield and his comrades, violence ensued. Wingfield and his men strung their bows and fired on the arresting officers. They were then able to make good their escape in the confusion. Despite this, thanks to the influence of the Duke of Norfolk, all three received royal pardons.
Robin Hood and the Peasants’ Revolt
The popular tales of Robin Hood highlighted the corruption and injustice that was endemic in the system. This was a system which could incarcerate an innocent woman of limited means for a year, whilst pardoning three privileged thugs. Very often it was literally a case of one law for the rich and another for the poor.
The medieval Robin is consistently portrayed as a yeoman of the forest, an outlaw and even a bandit. Yet he is the people’s hero. Instead of condemning him, these tales reserve their ire for the corrupt, wealthy abbots, sheriffs, and justices. Rich, powerful, men who abuse their powers to strip honest folk of their inheritance and abuse the poor. Typically, in these stories, people like Robin have no hope of obtaining any kind of justice from the local powers that be. Instead, Robin can only hope to appeal directly to the king. Only the king can put right the endemic corruption of the local justice system.
These same sentiments can be found in the Peasants’ Revolt – a belief that local officials and lords were inherently corrupt and intent on ruining and despoiling honest folk. For this reason, the rebels, like Robin, appealed to the king, believing that he alone could deliver justice.
Commissions of Oyer et Terminer
Sometimes serious problems emerged which the skeletal medieval legal system simply couldn’t cope with. Following a major insurrection like the Peasants’ Revolt, the number of people who needed to be tried could easily overwhelm the system. And, if endemic local corruption ran out of control, only the king could act to stamp it out.
In such cases the king could institute a special commission of Oyer et Terminer (which translates to ‘to hear and determine’) to investigate.
During the reign of Henry V, a serious problem with corruption in Shropshire required the invention of just such a commission. A group of the Earl of Arundel’s retainers obtained a stranglehold on power across the county. Extortions, bribery, cronyism, and the application of partisan justice spiralled out of control.
Henry V’s commission, over the summer of 1414, began proceedings against a staggering 1,600 individuals. Several of the leading culprits, including the Earl himself, were bound over to keep the peace for huge sums of money. Henry gave them all a second chance but only under the threat of enormous fines for any future bad behaviour.
Medieval Legacy
It is all too easy for us, from the comfort of our C21st armchairs, to be critical of law enforcement and justice in medieval England. Indeed, it undoubtedly had many faults. The system was under-resourced, and its officers were ill-trained. It could deliver harsh, even cruel, punishments by modern standards. Yet on the other hand it could be surprising lax, even to the point of apparent negligence. It was highly vulnerable to corruption and abuse, and it often failed to adequately tackle endemic lawlessness and armed violence.
Despite this, the rudimentary systems of enforcement and justice that emerged during the Middle Ages, served as a basis for all that followed. However crude and inadequate it may now seem, it laid the foundations of our modern legal system.
Keep up to date with our stories…
If you like reading our work and would like to keep up to date with the latest stories and news from our blog page, you can follow us on Facebook. We always announce any news and promote new stories as they are published here:
https://www.facebook.com/MedievalHistorian
If you are interested in life and society in medieval times, you might be interested in some of my related articles…
Medieval Summer Folk Traditions
Parliament and the Birth of Democracy
The Landscape of Medieval England
The Rise of the Medieval Church
References and further reading
Images
Photo of remains of hanged man displayed at Kentwell Hall’s Scaresville event by Achilver, 2007 (via Wiki Commons)
Medieval illustration of armed robbers, anon artist, C15th (via Wiki Commons)
The Reeve, illustration from the Ellesmere Manuscript, early C15th (via Wiki Commons)
The Burning of John Goose (a Lollard Heretic in the late C15th), published by John Foxe, 1563 (via Wiki Commons)
Robin Hood & Maid Marion – Illustration by Walter Crane (Wiki Commons)