41. EXAMPLES OF CRIMES PROSECUTED IN LOCAL COURTS: GAOL DELIVERY ROLLS (FOURTEENTH CENTURY)
INTRODUCTION
Criminal proceedings under medieval English law contained a number of different jurisdictions and procedural hurdles. When a violent crime had been committed, the men in the community were required to raise the hue and cry upon its discovery (women could do this only in cases of rape or if their husbands were attacked). All adult men of the community were subject to service in the view of frankpledge: a body that identified evildoers and catalogued crimes committed between court sessions. If a death occurred, the royal coroner in the county was obligated to investigate and determine the cause of death. The coroner’s inquest was a public hearing held several times a year. Those who were summoned to court after being accused of criminal activity were arrested and gaoled and the sheriff then had to “deliver” the prisoners to the court of the King’s Bench or the circuit court of Assize in order to be adjudged. This system remained remarkably consistent until the middle of the fourteenth century, when King Edward III began to replace central courts with more local jurisdictional courts, specifically for the adjudication of noncapital crimes. The system of “gaol delivery” however, continued.
KEEP IN MIND AS YOU READ
Courts of law proceedings, especially the criminal courts, required severe penalties for crimes we would consider fairly minor. Indeed, death sentences were more common than other kinds of penalties for crimes such as robbery, burglary, and assault. As a result, many people accused of crimes fled before being arrested. When trials did occur, very often juries would refuse to convict their neighbors and acquaintances, accepting pleas such as poverty or mental incompetence as excuses to acquit.
Document 1: Proceedings from Cambridgeshire
2. William le Aunblour of Sutton in Holland, in the diocese of Lincoln, confessed before Roger de Abyton and William Waryn, coroners, [that] he had stolen a mare and a horse, [valued at] 10 shillings, from Henry Watte of Histon at Impington on 4 September 1331. He appealed [accused] Hugh Colyn for [of] aiding him and receiving his share. Later William le Aunblour, escorted by the sheriff, comes and withdraws his accusation; he is sentenced to be hanged; he has no chattels. Hugh Colyn, questioned at the demand of the king, pleads not guilty and puts himself on the country; the jurors of Northstow and Chesterton hundreds find him not guilty; he is acquitted.
6. Margaret daughter of Robert de Stanton [was] arrested on indictment before William Waryn coroner on 3 February 1332 at Tadlow, for on Saturday, 1 February 1332, at Tadlow feloniously killing her daughter Alice. [She] comes escorted by the sheriff, pleads not guilty, puts herself on the country, and offers a writ of bono et malo from the king, instructing the justices to release Margaret if she has been imprisoned for the death of Alice, and not by special order. The jurors of Armingford hundred say that from 29 January 1332 to 4 February 1332 Margaret was mad and on Saturday at the hour of vespers she killed Alice with a knife; being asked if the killing was malicious or premeditated they say it was due to the madness. Margaret is returned to prison to await the king’s pardon.
27. Agnes Wendont of Cavenham [Suffolk] [is] indicted before the sheriff of Cambridge at his tourn at Swaffham on 10 November 1332, for on 21 June 1332 entering the house of John le Wyse at Isleham, binding his wife Alice, and feloniously robbing her of woolen and linen cloth valued at 5 shillings; she comes and pleads not guilty, and puts herself on the country. The jurors of Staine hundred say that Agnes robbed Alice at Isleham on the said day of a surcoat, [worth] 9 pence; let her remain in prison for 3 weeks and be released under suitable conditions.
71. William de Hildersham scrivener, [is] arrested for the death of John son of Robert Ace of Girton, [who was] feloniously killed in Cambridge on 7 February 1334, whence he was indicted before Adam de Bungeye coroner of Cambridge. He comes, escorted by John Putok mayor of Cambridge, says he is a clerk and [cannot be indicted in the royal court, but must be tried through the bishop’s court as a clergyman]. John vicar of St. Edward’s, acting for the bishop of Ely, comes and offers the bishop’s letter as enrolled on membrane 1; finding by examination that William is a clerk he seeks William’s release; after the jury has found William guilty he is released to the ordinary as a convicted clerk to await the king’s permission for purgation; the jury [value] his chattels at 4 shillings, the mayor and bailiffs of Cambridge are responsible for these which are confiscated for the king.
41. Nicholas le Souter of St. Ives [Huntingdonshire], is arrested on the appeal of John Shirlok, approver, for receiving him at St. Ives on 10 February 1331 with a brass pot, price 2 shillings, [even though he knew] him to be a thief and the pot stolen. Nicholas comes escorted by the sheriff, pleads not guilty, and puts himself on the country; the sheriff of Hunts is ordered to summon for 26 July 1334 from the neighborhood of St. Ives 18 free and lawful men unrelated to Nicholas; Nicholas is returned to prison.
A4. Nicholas Souter of St. Ives [Huntingdonshire] and Simon Molendinarius of Stilton [Huntingdonshire] [were] arrested on appeal by the said John [Shirlok], hanged approver, for receiving him at Stilton with divers goods stolen at divers places, linen and woolen cloth and various utensils valued at 20 shillings, on 21 June 1332, [although they knew] he was a thief and the goods stolen. The sheriff reports both have died in prison of natural causes according to the coroner’s report. The cases are closed.
Source: A Cambridgeshire Gaol Delivery Roll 1332–1334. Edited and translated by Elisabeth G. Kimball. Cambridge: Antiquarian Records Society, 1978. Pp. 33, 37, 49–50, 59–60, 77, 80. Translations modified by editor. Reprinted with permission from the Cambridgeshire Records Society.
AFTERMATH
Criminal activity in the countryside waxed and waned depending on how secure the population felt and how reliable and fair they considered the keepers of the peace to be. In addition, it is difficult to determine the exact rates of conviction of alleged perpetrators of crimes such as burglary, assault, and homicide but the suggestions in the records are that most people were either acquitted or they fled, and so were outlawed. One reason for the low rate of conviction might have been the fact that the punishments for crime were very severe, ranging from mutilation—cutting off of hands, ears, or nose or other forms of disfigurement—to death. Local communities might have been reluctant to punish neighbors to such an extent, and so turned a blind eye to those who fled the region and the realm.
ASK YOURSELF
How typical are the crimes presented in these extracts, and if typical, what does this say about crime in the medieval English countryside?
Would villagers who served on local courts be more likely or less likely to convict their fellow townspeople for criminal activity?
Would villagers resent having to serve on juries to investigate these kinds of crimes? Why or why not?
TOPICS TO CONSIDER
Compare the procedures outlined in the gaol delivery rolls to those in the crown pleas in eyre.
Consider the frequency with which villagers in the gaol delivery cases failed—like those in the eyre records—to follow through with investigating and capturing wrongdoers. Analyze reasons why this might be the case.
Consider the possibility: was medieval England more violent or less violent than modern England? Consider the kinds of weapons available and the apparent frequency of modes of self-help in engaging in disputes.
Further Information
Hanawalt, Barbara A. “Violent Death in Fourteenth- and Early Fifteenth-Century England.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 18, no. 3 (1976): 297–320.
Musson, Anthony. “Twelve Good Men and True? The Character of Early Fourteenth-Century Juries.” Law and History Review 15, no. 1 (1997): 115–144.
[Westman], Barbara Hanawalt. “The Peasant Family and Crime in Fourteenth-Century England.” Journal of British Studies 13, no. 2 (1974): 1–18.