The development of the legal system

Model answer

The Statute of Gloucester ordered that every lord who claimed a franchise, such as a private court or gallows, had to prove before the king's justices by what warrant he held it (quo warranto). It also ordered that a person who killed someone by accident or in self-defence should be kept in prison until the justices came, and could then receive the king's pardon.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing that corruption was widespread among the men who ran the law. The Hundred Rolls inquiry of 1274-75 gathered many complaints that sheriffs, bailiffs and lords' officials had taken bribes, seized goods and arrested people falsely in order to extort money. The scandal of 1289 is real too. When Edward returned from three years in Gascony he faced so many complaints that he set up a special commission to hear grievances against his officials. Thomas Weyland, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, was accused of protecting servants who had committed murder; he fled to sanctuary in a friary, was starved out and had to abjure the realm in 1290. Ralph Hengham, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, was dismissed and heavily fined, the Exchequer official Adam of Stratton was convicted of fraud, and most of the senior judges were removed. So the claim that 'even the king's chief judges' sold justice is supported.

However, the conclusion that royal justice was 'rotten from top to bottom' is less convincing. The very top - the king - was the one who exposed and punished the corruption. Edward had ordered the Hundred Rolls inquiry, the Statute of Westminster I (1275) included many clauses against abuses by officials, and the 1289 commission let ordinary people bring complaints against powerful men. Calling officials 'worse than the criminals' is exaggerated: they were fined rather than hanged, and some returned to favour - Hengham became Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in 1301 - which suggests that their offences were not always as serious as the interpretation claims and that the fines also helped the king's finances. Meanwhile the courts went on working, and corruption was a problem in all medieval government, not just Edward's.

Overall, Interpretation A is convincing about how much corruption there was, but unconvincing in ignoring the fact that it was Edward's own investigations that revealed and punished it.

Model answer

The process began with the community. When a felony such as a killing or robbery was discovered, the finder had to raise the hue and cry, and everyone in the area had to chase the suspect. If a village failed to do this, it could be fined by the royal justices. If someone had died suddenly, the coroner came to view the body and held an inquest with a jury of local men, recording what had happened and who was suspected.

If the suspect was caught, he was handed to the sheriff and held in the county gaol until the king's justices arrived. Royal justices visited the counties either in the general eyre, every few years, or more often to 'deliver' the gaols by trying the prisoners held there. Before them, a jury of presentment from each hundred named the people suspected of crimes, a system that went back to the Assize of Clarendon of 1166. A victim or relative could also make a private accusation, called an appeal.

The trial itself was by jury. Trial by ordeal had ended after the Church withdrew its support in 1215, so the accused was asked whether he would put himself upon a jury of twelve local men. Because he had to agree, the Statute of Westminster I (1275) allowed a suspect who refused to be held in 'strong and hard prison' to force him to accept. The jury, using its local knowledge, decided whether he was guilty. A guilty felon was hanged and his goods forfeited to the crown; someone who had killed in self-defence or by accident was kept in prison until the king pardoned him, as the Statute of Gloucester (1278) laid down.

Many suspects never reached this stage. Some fled to a church, claimed sanctuary and then abjured the realm before the coroner. Others ran away and were outlawed after being called at a series of county courts, and clergy could claim to be tried in the Church's courts. This shows that the system depended heavily on local communities, and when they failed to catch suspects, many escaped trial altogether.

Model answer

Edward I's reforms made some parts of justice fairer for ordinary free people, especially by tackling the abuses of officials, but they did little for the unfree and were harsh towards some groups, so I only partly agree.

The strongest argument for the statement is Edward's attack on corrupt officials. The Hundred Rolls inquiry of 1274-75 allowed communities to complain on oath about sheriffs, bailiffs and lords' officials who took bribes, seized goods and imprisoned people falsely, and the Statute of Westminster I (1275) included many clauses against these abuses. In 1289 Edward set up a commission that heard complaints from anyone, however humble, and it brought down the chief justices Thomas Weyland and Ralph Hengham. From 1280 petitions to parliament were organised so that complaints reached the right officials. These were real gains for ordinary free people.

Justice also became more accessible. Westminster II (1285) arranged for cases begun at Westminster to be tried in the counties before visiting justices, saving long journeys, and it allowed new writs for cases similar to existing ones, giving people more remedies. The Statute of Gloucester (1278) allowed those who killed in self-defence or by accident to be pardoned, and the quo warranto inquiries checked lords' private courts. The Statute of Winchester (1285) aimed to protect travellers and townspeople from robbers.

However, many ordinary people did not benefit. About half the population were unfree villeins, who could not take disputes about their land to the royal courts and remained under their lord's manor court. Trial juries were made up of men of property, and they could be bribed or intimidated by gangs and powerful lords. A suspect who refused jury trial could be held in 'strong and hard prison' under Westminster I. The Statute of Winchester imposed collective fines on whole hundreds for robberies, punishing the innocent with the guilty, and after the 1290 compromise most lords kept their franchises.

Some groups were treated very unfairly. Jews suffered most: the Statute of Jewry (1275) banned moneylending at interest, more than 250 Jews were hanged for coin clipping in 1278-79 while Christians accused of the same offence were mostly fined, and in 1290 all Jews were expelled from England. In the war years, criminals were pardoned for serving in the army, and the trailbaston justices of 1304-05 were accused of punishing innocent men.

Many of the reforms also served landowners and merchants more than ordinary people, for example De donis, which protected family estates, and the Statutes of Acton Burnell (1283) and Merchants (1285), which helped merchants recover debts.

Overall, I partly agree. Edward's reforms did make justice fairer for free people who suffered from corrupt officials, which was a real improvement. But for villeins, for Jews and for those caught up in collective punishments and wartime disorder, justice was no fairer, and the reforms mostly benefited the propertied classes who sat in parliament.