Englishry

Last updated

Englishry or, in Old French, Englescherie, is a legal name given, in medieval England, for the status of a person as an Englishman (i.e., as a commoner of native Anglo-Saxon stock rather than a member of the Anglo-Norman elite).

Contents

Specifically, presentment of Englishry refers to the establishment that a person slain was an Englishman rather than a Norman. If an unknown man was found slain, he was presumed to be a Norman, and the administrative district known as the hundred was fined accordingly, unless it could be proved that he was English. Englishry, if established, excused the hundred. [1] [2]

Origins

It is thought that Danish invaders first introduced the practice in England and that the Norman conquerors preserved and revived it. [3] W. Stubbs (Constitutional History, I p. 196) suggests such measures may have been taken by King Canute. [1] It is not, however, mentioned in Glanvill's treatise, which is the earliest known treatise of medieval English law. [4] There is no direct evidence of an earlier date than Bracton's 13th century legal treatise De Legibus. [5] Attempts to prove that a murdered Norman was English were understandably frequent. [6]

Abolition

Engleschrie Act 1340
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of Edward III of England (1327-1377) (Attributed).svg
Long title Presentment of Engleschrie shall be clearly extirpate.
Citation 14 Edw. 3 Stat. 1. c. 4
Dates
Commencement 21 February 1340
Repealed28 July 1863
Other legislation
Repealed by
Text of statute as originally enacted

The practice was abolished with the Engleschrie Act 1340 (14 Edw. 3 Stat. 1. c. 4), passed by the Parliament of England (itself repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and the Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872).

Though for some 200 years prior to abolition, it had no longer been possible reliably to distinguish Normans from Englishmen, [7] the practice had continued because it was so profitable to the Crown, as only a small amount of the fine was allotted to the relatives of the murdered man. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hubert Walter</span> 12th-century English Chancellor, Justiciar, and Archbishop of Canterbury

Hubert Walter was an influential royal adviser in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries in the positions of Chief Justiciar of England, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Chancellor. As chancellor, Walter began the keeping of the Charter Roll, a record of all charters issued by the chancery. Walter was not noted for his holiness in life or learning, but historians have judged him one of the most outstanding government ministers in English history.

Ranulf de Glanvill was Chief Justiciar of England during the reign of King Henry II (1154–89) and was the probable author of Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Anglie, the earliest treatise on the laws of England.

Murdrum was the crime of murdering someone in a secret manner in medieval English law.

William of Poitiers was a Norman priest who served as the chaplain of Duke William II of Normandy, for whom he chronicled the Norman conquest of England in his Gesta Willelmi ducis Normannorum et regis Anglorum. He had trained as a soldier before taking holy orders.

In old English law, an essoin is an excuse for nonappearance in court. Essoining is the seeking of the same. The person sent to deliver the excuse to the court is an essoiner or essoineur.

The legal term peace, sometimes king's peace or queen's peace, is the common-law concept of the maintenance of public order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anglo-Saxon law</span> Pre-conquest law in England

Anglo-Saxon law was the legal system of Anglo-Saxon England from the 6th century until the Norman Conquest of 1066. It was a form of Germanic law based on unwritten custom known as folk-right and on written laws enacted by kings with the advice of their witan or council. By the later Anglo-Saxon period, a system of courts had developed to administer the law, while enforcement was the responsibility of ealdormen and royal officials such as sheriffs, in addition to self-policing by local communities.

In tort law, detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who claims to have a greater right to their immediate possession than the current possessor. For an action in detinue to succeed, a claimant must first prove that he had better right to possession of the chattel than the defendant, and second, that the defendant refused to return the chattel once demanded by the claimant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry de Bracton</span> English jurist (c.1210 – c.1268)

Henry of Bracton, also known as Henry de Bracton, Henricus Bracton, Henry Bratton, and Henry Bretton, was an English cleric and jurist.

<i>Quia Emptores</i> English statute of 1290

Quia Emptores is a statute passed by the Parliament of England in 1290 during the reign of Edward I that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation, instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution. The statute, along with its companion statute Quo Warranto also passed in 1290, was intended to remedy land ownership disputes and consequent financial difficulties that had resulted from the decline of the traditional feudal system in England during the High Middle Ages. The name Quia Emptores derives from the first two words of the statute in its original mediaeval Latin, which can be translated as "because the buyers". Its long title is A Statute of our Lord The King, concerning the Selling and Buying of Land. It is also cited as the Statute of Westminster III, one of many English and British statutes with that title.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leges Edwardi Confessoris</span>

The title Leges Edwardi Confessoris, or Laws of Edward the Confessor, refers to a collection of laws, purporting to represent English law in the time of Edward the Confessor, as recited to the Norman invader king William I in 1070, but which was not composed until probably the early years of the reign of King Stephen.

The Leges Henrici Primi or Laws of Henry I is a legal treatise, written in about 1115, that records the legal customs of medieval England in the reign of King Henry I of England. Although it is not an official document, it was written by someone apparently associated with the royal administration. It lists and explains the laws, and includes explanations of how to conduct legal proceedings. Although its title implies that these laws were issued by King Henry, it lists laws issued by earlier monarchs that were still in force in Henry's reign; the only law of Henry that is included is the coronation charter he issued at the start of his reign. It covers a diverse range of subjects, including ecclesiastical cases, treason, murder, theft, feuds, assessment of danegeld, and the amounts of judicial fines.

<i>Regiam Majestatem</i> Early Scottish Law

The Regiam Majestatem is the earliest surviving work giving a comprehensive digest of the Law of Scotland. The name of the document is derived from its first two words. It consists of four books, treating (1) civil actions and jurisdictions, (2) judgments and executions, (3) contracts, and (4) crimes.

<i>Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Anglie</i> Earliest treatise on English law

The Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliae, often called Glanvill, is the earliest treatise on English law. Attributed to Ranulf de Glanvill and dated 1187–1189, it was revolutionary in its systematic codification that defined legal process and introduced writs, innovations that have survived to the present day. It is considered a book of authority in English common law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hugh Bardulf</span> 12th-century Anglo-Norman nobleman and sheriff

Hugh Bardulf or Hugh Bardolf was a medieval English administrator and royal justice. Known for his legal expertise, he also served as a financial administrator. He served three kings of England before his death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roger fitzReinfrid</span> 12th-century English sheriff and royal justice

Roger fitzReinfrid was a medieval English sheriff and royal justice. Probably born into a knightly family, Roger first was in the household of a nobleman before beginning royal service. His brother, Walter de Coutances, was a bishop and archbishop and likely helped advance Roger's career. Besides holding two sheriffdoms, Roger was entrusted with the control of a number of royal castles.

Infangthief and outfangthief were privileges granted to feudal lords under Anglo-Saxon law by the kings of England. They permitted their bearers to execute summary justice on thieves within the borders of their own manors or fiefs.

Caput lupinum or caput gerat lupinum are terms used in the English legal system and its derivatives. The terms were used in Medieval England to designate a person pronounced by the authorities to be a dangerous criminal, who could thus be killed without penalty.

Reginald de Warenne was an Anglo-Norman nobleman and royal official. The third son of an earl, Reginald began his career as an administrator of his brother's estates and continued to manage them for his brother's successor, William, the second son of King Stephen. Reginald was involved in the process that led to the peaceful ascension of Henry fitzEmpress to the throne of England in 1154 and served the new king as a royal justice afterwards. He played a minor role in the Becket controversy in 1170, as a member of the party that met Becket on his return to England from exile in 1170.

Osbert fitzHervey was an Anglo-Norman royal judge. Brother of Hubert Walter and Theobald Walter, Osbert served three kings of England and may have contributed to the legal treatise attributed to his uncle, Ranulf de Glanvill. Ralph of Coggeshall, a medieval writer, praised Osbert's knowledge of law, but condemned his acceptance of gifts from plaintiffs and defendants in legal cases. Osbert was one of a group of men who are considered the first signs of a professional judiciary in England.

References

  1. 1 2 Chisholm 1911.
  2. "As after the Norman occupation, King William found that many of his soldiers would be found slain in outlying places, and no information could be obtained as to any criminal, he adopted this device. He varied an older custom by imposing a heavy fine on the district, were a man found slain, unless it was definitely proved that the deceased was of English blood. Therefore, unless the murdered man were proved to be of native descent, he was presumed to be a Norman, and in this case the record, as we have seen, would run: No Englishry presented, therefore murder (of a Norman) on the hundred (for which the fine must be paid)."Transactions of the Greenwich Antiquarian Society Vols 1-2 p. 153 (1907) Charles North, London "In cases of death by violence, and in Somersetshire amongst other counties, also in cases of death by misadventure, it was further the duty of the coroner, as the King's officer, not to lose an opportunity of recovering the murdrum, or murder fine which the district could only escape by a proper presentment of Englishry. This was a fruitful source of revenue. How common these fines were in the rough days of the 13th century a glance through the pleas of the crown in the assize rolls suffices to show. It is usual to describe the "murdrum" as a fine imposed upon a district for the secret killing of a person. Glanvill speaks of secret killing, and Bracton states that the fine was not imposed where the killer was known. Sir J. Fitzjames Stephen has also clearly expressed the same view. Even if this were so in very early days, it certainly would be inaccurate as a full statement of the practice during the 13th century. There are many recorded cases of the infliction of the fine where the slayer was known." Sir J. Fitzjames Stephen, History of the Criminal Law Vol. III., p. 77. fo. 135. Somersetshire Pleas Vol. 11 p. lix (1897) Somerset Record Society from the Rolls of the Itinerant Justices (close of the 12th century – Henry III)
  3. Hon Dixon J. "The Development of the Law of Homicide". The Australian Law Journal (Supplement) (1935) 64. pp. 64-69.
  4. Walter Wheeler Cook, et al., Malice Aforethought, 33 Yale Law Journal 528, 531(1924).
  5. "Englishry, n." OED Online. DRAFT REVISION Sept. 2008. Oxford University Press [ dead link ] "...when Cnut had become established in England and had sent home the greater part of his army of invasion at the request of the English magnates, the latter guaranteed the safety of such of the Danes as remained. Thus if any Englishman killed a Dane and could not justify himself by the ordeal, justice was to be done upon him. If he fled, the township had a month and a day to seek him, and if it failed to find him and deliver him to justice it was fined 46 marks, 40 of which went to the King. What the township could not pay of this fine the hundred had to make good. It seems that if within a year the murderer was delivered to justice the fine was returnable. The Leges Willelmi Conquestoris varied the practice somewhat. In the 12th century, especially in the time of Henry I., various Latin law-books were written in England, most of them by men of French birth, in order to expound the 'laga Edwardi,' i.e. the Anglo-Saxon legal system, which, as amended by William I. and Henry I., was still regarded as valid. These compilations are the so-called Leges Henrici Primi (the most valuable of the series), Leges Edwardi Confessoris, Leges Willelmi Conquestoris or the bilingual code, the Quadripartitus (which contains a Latin translation of the old dooms, with those of Cnut in the foreground), and two other translations of Cnut's laws, namely, the Consiliatio Cnuti and the Instituta Cnuti. To these should be added Pseudo-Cnut's Constitutiones de Foresta, a forgery of Henry II.'s time, and the untrustworthy Leges Anglorum of John's reign.
    Charles Gross (1900) The Sources and Literature of English History from the Earliest Times to About 1485 p. 197, Longmans, Green and Co. The Frenchman, the "Francus homo" was substituted for the Dane. If he were killed and the men of the visne (vicinity) did not take the killer within a week they forfeited 46 marks. The King further enjoined that if any Norman or Frenchman was slain his lord should have the killer within a certain time; if he failed he should forfeit 46 marks, and what of this he could not pay should be made good by the hundred in which the murder was done." "The liability to the fine could only be escaped by proof in the prescribed manner that the person slain was English. This was the "presentment of Englishry." The presentment was made to the local court or the coroner, and in turn presented to the justices when they next came into the county." Somersetshire Pleas Vol. 11 p. lix (1897) Somerset Record Society from the Rolls of the Itinerant Justices (close of the 12th century – Henry III)
  6. In the Pipe Rolls of the latter part of the reign of Henry II., the ' false presentments,' which must, no doubt, be interpreted as false presentments of Englishry, are very frequent, as are 'concealments'; and 'false presentments of Englishry' by name are to be found on the Pipe Roll 34 Henry II., under Berkshire, Somersetshire, &c."Luke Owen Pike (1873) A History of Crime in England, Smith, Elder & Company, London
  7. According to the Dialogue concerning the Exchequer, "by reason of the English and Normans dwelling together, and constantly intermarrying, the two nations are so completely mixed one with the other, that, in so far as regards the portion of the community that is free, it can scarcely any longer be ascertained who is of English, who of Norman descent." Quoted in Craik, George L. (1838). The Pictorial History of England. London: Knight and Company. p. 666.
  8. Pettifer, Ernest W. (2017). Punishments of Former Days. READ Books. ISBN   978-1-5287-0028-3. OCLC   1106084350.