left between entries in the roll. The difficulties of the clerk are illustrated by case 307, where a presentment by the township of Gateshead was either not heard or overlooked-it rather suggests a crowded and somewhat noisy court.

As to the nature of the entries on the roll, the following advice given by the late Professor Maitland* must be borne in mind:

"We are evidently dealing, not with a document carefully made up after the judicial business which it describes was over, but with a collection of notes jotted down while that business was actually going on. Consequently, we must expect language which is summary, elliptical, disjointed. It must be allowed that the Latin is bad; by which is meant not merely that it is medieval Latin (Bracton's Latin is good enough, though it is the Latin of the thirteenth, not of the first century), but that it is bad Latin in the same sense that modern notes of evidence' are bad English. One must read it in jerks, as one would read the notes which judges and counsel now make in court; one must be prepared for very sudden changes of nominative, and willing to fill up breaches of grammar with common sense.

وو

He

To illustrate the procedure a few typical cases may be taken. Case 106 records that Thomas of Easington accidentally killed his son. Thomas was imprisoned, but as was almost always the case, he was released on finding pledges that he would appear before the justices. accordingly appears before the judges. The jury—not the petty jury of our day, but the presenting jury, the ancestor of our grand jury-say that Thomas killed his son by misfortune and not by either anger or hatred. Thomas is accordingly placed in the custody of the constable of the castle-of Durham evidently—until the justices have had an opportunity of discussing the question with the Bishop, doubtless with a view of a free pardon being granted, for the judges have no power to acquit a man who was found to

* Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, xxvii.

have committed homicide by misadventure.* Thomas, however, is not kept in prison, as he finds two pledges who undertake to produce him if any one desires to take action against him in connection with his son's death.

Case 130 is an example of action by an approver, a criminal who, in consideration of his successfully prosecuting a certain number of other criminals, is allowed to go free. In this case Stephen of Trindon denounces Geoffrey of Haswell, who is arrested and then released on finding pledges that he will attend before the judges. Subsequently Geoffrey steals corn and is caught red-handed, but luckily for him the value of the corn is only two pence, for he would have been hung without trial had the value exceeded a shilling as a hand-having thief.† When brought up before the county court he confesses that he stole the corn, but no reference is made to his having suffered any punishment for his petty larceny, such as whipping or the loss of an ear. At the eyre the jury state that they do not suspect Geoffrey of any offence except that of stealing corn, and he is therefore acquitted, but at the same time is ordered to quit the Bishopric unless he obtains the Bishop's permission to return Of the fate of Stephen, the approver, who was unsuccessful in his other prosecution (131), there is no record. Hanging it was, no doubt, but as there was no property for the Bishop to claim, the clerk omitted to record the obvious result of his lack of success. The roll contains several other cases of approvers (1, 2, 90, 91 and 92) who attempted to fight their way to freedom, for, as a rule, the decision depended on the duel fought with staffs, as in the case (90) where Robert, the son of Abraham, was denounced by Stephen, overcome by him in the duel, and hung. another case (2) the defendants summarily disposed of the approvers by hanging them, a procedure which apparently

* Pollock and Maitland, ii., 479.

+ Ibid., ii., 495, "Northumberland Assize Roll" From his acquittal it would appear that he had

the county court for his theft.

In

(Surtees Soc.), 70.
already been punished by

does not call forth any adverse comment, or even a fine by the judges.

One of the principal methods of bringing criminals to book was personal action on the part of the person injured, who "appeals" the defendant.

In case 119 we have a series of appeals which followed on what appears to have been a faction fight on Houghton Moor. Alan of Houghton comes before the court, and in minute detail describes the injuries he had received at the hands of Hamo, serjeant of the Lord of Hurworth; the hour, the place, the nature of the wound, the weapon, and amount of money stolen are all carefully specified, followed by an offer to prove (dis-racionare) in the usual way, i.e., by duel. To these charges Hamo does not plead a direct negative; he takes exception to Alan's process, and claims that he is not called upon to reply to him on the grounds that, though appealed with words of felony, Alan had not raised the "Hue and Cry,"* that he had not made sufficient suit,† and that the wounds are not visible.

To this defence Alan admits that he did not raise the hue and cry, but states that he laid his complaint before the Bishop's bailiff at Durham, and had shewn his wounds at the county court. The judges, however, dismiss the appeal, and the luckless Alan is fined for his "false" appeal and ordered to be imprisoned. This, however, does not end the case, which is referred to the jury to be dealt with on its merits, the appeal having failed on purely technical grounds. The jury say that Alan was beaten, but not robbed, and that the hue and cry was not raised. They assess the damage sustained by Alan at five shillings, which Hamo and another Hurworth man have to pay.

Though there are a number of cases of appeal on the roll it is but seldom that there is any definite result. In most cases the prosecutor fails either to put in an appearance or to proceed with the appeal, but, as has been seen above, a failure of the appeal did not absolve the defendant, who as

* Pollock and Maitland, ii., 578.

† Ibid., ii., 606.

a rule had to stand his trial by the court. Of criminal trials of what would now be considered the usual kind there are singularly few, for in most cases the criminal fled, or in the very few cases where he was caught summary punishment was inflicted. As a result there are a number of cases where the criminal has been outlawed, the main interest of the court being in securing his chattels for the Bishop, and also the beneficial uses of his land for a year and a day. Owing to the paucity of punishments available-for there was nothing between death and the various minor penalties, such as loss of an ear, whipping, etc., and imprisonment was not then regarded as penal, but merely as a means of obtaining payment of a fine or securing an individual's presence—the court is not severe on defendants who, though guilty of the offence with which they are charged, otherwise have an unblemished character; in such cases (350) the defendant is allowed to return on finding pledges for his future good behaviour.

TABLE I. at the end of this Introduction contains a rough analysis of the criminal entries on the roll, indicating the nature of the crime, the procedure, and the result. The numerous cases of outlawry and undetected criminals shew that the system of amateur police then in force was anything but satisfactory, and viewed in that light the constant fining of delinquent townships for allowing offenders to escape was very necessary. It should be mentioned here that there was no system of frankpledge* in the Bishopric, the offender's township being the responsible unit, even, it would appear, when the crime was committed outside the township (164, 166). Again, there was no murdrum fine, and Englishry has not therefore to be presented.†

All things considered, the number of cases of sanctuary recorded is somewhat small, but the advantages of simple flight were greater, for in those days the plunge into the unknown, which the process of abjuring the realm involved,

* In seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there are references to view of frankpledge, but it would appear to be an innovation. As to frankpledge, vide Pollock and Maitland, i., 568.

† Ibid., ii., 487; Cal. Close Rolls, 29 March 1227, p. 179.

would be somewhat terrifying to the ordinary offender, whilst the roll (207) records the fate of a certain Richard, who, having abjured the realm, was caught at York.*

The active and intelligent criminal had but little to fear in those days-his main difficulty must have been the lack of suitable material to steal. Except, possibly, in the towns† the hue and cry seems to be singularly inefficient, for the roll discloses the fact that in almost all cases of robbery the robbers were unknown. The principal danger he ran was that of being caught in the act, when his career of crime would be speedily and effectively terminated, hanging and not decapitation being the usual local method of doing this. The risk of such a fate was but slight,‡ and it may be of interest to study the machinery which is brought into motion. The person robbed must immediately raise the hue and cry in the four neighbouring townships, and in addition he must inform the serjeant of the ward (352). In the old days when wealth was largely represented by flocks the tracking of the stolen animals could be effectively done by the hue and cry, but it is evident that, despite the many fines inflicted by the justices on defaulting townships, it was singularly ineffective in capturing criminals, and its main use was to prevent false accusations of crime being brought against innocent persons, for the failure to raise the hue and cry at the earliest possible moment was a not uncommon defence (60).§

*For the distinction between the lesser and greater sanctuary see infra, xxi., and the " Archæological Journal." The question of abjuration is dealt with very fully in "Revue Historique," vol. 50, p. 1.

In the roll the comparatively small amount of crime in the towns is noticeable, and is possibly due to more effective police arrangements than in the scattered townships.

TABLE I. discloses the fact that of the 29 cases of robbery recorded by way of presentment, in only two cases were the offenders hung; and of the remainder all escaped, though three took sanctuary and abjured the realm. The appeals of robbery and wounding are made against persons who are not criminals; the action of trespass was then only in its infancy, and an appeal was one of the usual methods of bringing such questions before the court (Pollock and Maitland, ii., 526).

§ The necessity for the issue of the writ of 1252 as to watch and ward ("Select Charters," 370) indicates that the hue and cry at this period was not working satisfactorily.