42. DEATH AND MISADVENTURE: EXAMPLES FROM THE CORONERS’ ROLLS (FOURTEENTH CENTURY)
INTRODUCTION
The coroners’ rolls are one of the most interesting document collections of medieval English law and procedure. Every county was assigned at least one coroner—and by the end of the thirteenth century, there were usually at least two assigned to each county—who worked with the sheriff to determine the circumstances surrounding deaths that occurred in the county, and that were brought to the court through the view of frankpledge or the raising of the hue and cry. Coroners were required to investigate all deaths that were not obviously natural, and to determine who might potentially be responsible. The coroner’s inquest was a public hearing presided over by the coroner, in which the sheriff summoned witnesses to court and deaths were either determined accidental (that is, no person’s fault) or needing an indictment. The system continues to this day in the United Kingdom.
KEEP IN MIND AS YOU READ
The entire community, especially the men who were in tithing-groups known as hundreds, was required to police itself and to make note of misbehavior and acts of violence in the community. The most common act was the raising of the “hue and cry”: the public alert made by an individual or individuals that a crime had occurred. Once this had occurred, it was the obligation of the community to round up the suspects and keep them secured until such time as the coroner or the county court could adjudicate. The raisers of the hue and cry were expected to testify in court to their discovery; they too could be jailed if they failed to appear.
Document 1: Coroners’ Rolls
Accidental Deaths
[1] It happened at Wick on Sunday after Candlemas, 19 Richard II [6 February 1396], that Edith Rogers of Wick, who was demented or insane, was drowned in a little well filled with rain-water in the highway called Rose Street in Wick, and was found dead. The first finder of her body was Henry Redhood; John Bond and Nicholas Northland are pledges for his appearance before the itinerant justices when they come into these parts. Edith was viewed by the said coroner on the following Tuesday.
Inquest was taken at Dursley before John Trye on the said Friday of that year on the oath of John Trotman, John Bond, John Dangerville, and Elias Spark, jurors of the township of Wick, and John Cowley, William at the Elm, John Browning, and Robert Browning, jurors of the township of Cam, and Richard Halling, John Cokes, John Dorney, and Walter Jordan, jurors of the township of Slimbridge. They say on their oath that Edith by reason of her own negligence and insanity fell into the well and thus by misadventure was drowned, and they can ascertain nothing more. And they say that she had no goods.
[2] It . . . happened at Cowley on Wednesday after the feast of the Nativity of Blessed Mary, 20 Richard II [13 September 1396], that a small boy, Robert of Cowley, was there found dead. The first finder of his body was Henry Lawes of Cowley; John Brinkworth and William Shire are pledges for his appearance before the itinerant justices when they came into these parts. The body was viewed on the following Friday by the aforesaid John Trye.
Inquest was taken at Crowley on the said Friday on the oath of twelve jurors of the said townships of Wick, Cam, and Slimbridge; they say on their oath that Robert, a little boy only three years of age, fell into a pan full of milk and thus was drowned by misadventure. The pan is worth six pence and remains in charge of the township of Cowley. And [the jurors] can ascertain nothing more, etc.
[3] It also happened at Cam on Friday next before the feast of St. Leonard in the twentieth year of the present king [3 November 1396] that William Bachelor, who was ten years of age, was found dead in a certain field near the Woodend. The first finder of his body was Henry Allport; the pledges [for his appearance] before the itinerant justices, etc. are Henry Draycot and John Hart. The body was viewed by the aforesaid coroner on the following Saturday.
Inquest was made at Cam on that same Saturday before the said coroner on the oath of twelve jurors of the aforesaid townships of Wick, Cam, and Slimbridge; they say on their oath that the said William sat sleeping in a certain sand-pit under an overhanging bank of the said pit, which suddenly fell upon him, and thus by misadventure he was crushed by the falling sand. [The jurors say] that they can ascertain nothing more, and that he has no goods.
A Case of Homicide
Inquest was taken [at Stepney] before the coroner on Sunday on the eve of St. Lawrence’s day [9 August] in the aforesaid year of King Edward the Third [1366], on view of the body of a certain John Clerk, tiler, on the oath [of twelve men]. They say on their oath that on Friday next before St Lawrence’s day in the said year Adam Case, an inhabitant of London, came to the ville of Stepney, namely to a certain field below that ville, and there insulted the said John Clerk, tiler, with opprobrious words, and forthwith drew a certain knife thirteen inches long, with which he had feloniously stuck John Clerk, making a severe wound on his left shoulder one inch long and thirteen inches deep, and this wound at once caused his death. Being asked whether [Adam] did this by the abetment or procurement of any person, they say, No. Being also asked whither the felon had gone, they say that he was arrested forthwith and taken to Newgate gaol. Being also asked what his good and chattels are worth and who has them, they say that he has nothing in this lordship but only in the city of London. Being also asked who first found him dead, they say that Thomas Clerk of Aldgate Street first found him, and he raised the hue. And the four men and the reeves of four neighboring townships, to wit, Bromley, East Smithfield, Hackney, and Shoreditch, say the same. Thomas Clerk, the finder, was mainprised by John Green, a butcher of London, and Henry Baker of Holywell Street.
A Case of Overzealous Administration
[Northamptonshire].
It happened at Polebrook on Saturday next after Ascension Day 29 Edward I [13 May 1301] that a certain Reginald Porthors and Ralph Chapman, both of Polebrook, went after dinner to the house of John of Weldon of Polebrook, by order of Sir Ralph Porthors of Polebrook, to bring the said John to Sir Ralph’s court alive or dead, and they found John asleep. They said Reginald struck him on the left side of the head with a certain sword, [which penetrated] to the brain, and thus he came to his death. And Ralph Chapman struck him on the back with a certain axe called a sparthe but he lived until Tuesday next after the following Trinity Sunday [30 May], when he died after confessing and partaking of the communion.
Inquest was made before John of Ashton by four neighboring townships to wit, Oundle with Elminton, and Aston, Hemington, and Warmington. They say on their oath that they know nothing more thereof except as is aforesaid. And they say that the said Reginald and Ralph Chapman took from the said John and carried away ten shillings and a farthing; and then they went forthwith to the court of Sir Ralph Porthors. The tithing-men of Polebrook followed them thither with the hue, intending to attach them. And Sir Ralph would not allow the tithing-men to enter his court, but he received the said Reginald and Ralph before and after the act; and they afterward fled to some unknown place. They had no chattels. The sword was worth twelve pence, the axe four pence; the township of Polebrook will answer for these. Also the township of Polebrook by itself says that the said Reginald and Ralph Chapman went to the house of John of Weldon, by order of Sir Ralph Porthors, to bring Joan, [John’s] wife, to Sir Ralph’s court and to place her in his stocks, and for no other purpose. R. de Vere, sheriff of Northamptonshire is ordered to arrest Sir Ralph Porthors, Reginald Porthors, and Ralph Chapman.
Source: Gross, Selden, ed. Select Cases from the Coroners’ Rolls. A.D. 1265–1413. Selden Society. London, 1896. Pp. 49–59. Modified by editor.
AFTERMATH
The majority of deaths investigated by medieval coroners were cases of “death by misadventure” rather than homicide. Accidents were all too common, and many could result in death or serious disfigurement. This is particularly the case for children who were often in charge of younger siblings while themselves very young: a six-year old in charge of an infant was not an uncommon occurrence. Child deaths by accident were all too frequent in an environment of open fires, top-heavy cooking cauldrons, and uncovered wells. Adults also were subject to accidental death, especially when working at jobs that could be dangerous. Finally, the lack of effective medical care probably rendered injuries deadly in the Middle Ages that today would be fairly easily cured. This all meant that the coroners’ job was a busy one!
ASK YOURSELF
Why were all deaths—even accidents—investigated by the coroner?
What information can you derive from cases such as these that tell you about how medieval people lived?
TOPICS TO CONSIDER
Compare the information you gain from the coroners’ rolls and those you gain from eyres, assizes, and gaol deliveries and analyze how historians might utilize all three to develop a clearer picture of criminal activity and violence in medieval England and Wales.
Consider other uses for these kinds of documents, such as determining, by knowing where and how people died, how nonelite people in the British Isles might have lived.
Further Information
Hanawalt, Barbara A. The Ties That Bound: Peasant Lives in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Hunnisett, H. F. “The Medieval Coroners’ Rolls.” The American Journal of Legal History 3, no. 2 (1959): 95–124.
Musson, A. J. “Turning King’s Evidence: The Prosecution of Crime in Late Medieval England.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 19, no. 3 (1999): 467–479.