1. See Knafla, L. A.. ‘Crime and Criminal Justice: a Critical Bibliography,’ in Cockburn, J. S., ed., Crime in England 1550-1800 (Princeton, 1977) 270Google Scholar. A periodical devoted exclusively to the subject has also made an appearance; see Criminal Justice History: An International Annual.

2. Milsom, S. F. C., Historical Foundations of the Common Law, 2d ed. (Toronto, 1981) 403Google Scholar.

3. See, e.g., Macfarlane, Alan, The Justice and the Mare's Ale (New York, 1981) 1Google Scholar: ‘The apparently rising tide of physical violence … gives the historical study of crime and social control a special relevance.’ Note also the conclusion of Hammer, Carl, ‘Patterns of Homicide in a Medieval University Town: Fourteenth-Century Oxford,’ Past and Present 78 (1978) 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘[T]he Oxford coroners' rolls do prove conclusively that a basically healthy and stable complex society can coexist with, perhaps even thrive in, an environment where violent death is common.’ See also Inciardi, J. A. and Faupel, C. E., eds., History and Crime: Implications for Criminal Justice Policy (Beverly Hills, 1980Google Scholar).

4. Much has been in the form of reviews of books whose authors have taken the statistical approach: e.g., J. B. Post, Review of Given, J. B., Society and Homicide in Thirteenth-century England, in Archives xiv (1979) 30Google Scholar. See also Stone, Lawrence, The Past and the Present (Boston, 1981) 189–99Google Scholar. He dismisses the statistical approach in a short paragraph.

5. The records used in the preparation of this article come from the courts of several English dioceses. They are today kept in various archives in England. Citation to these manuscript sources is given hereinafter by diocese and the following corresponding repositories:

6. See generally Owen, Dorothy M., The Records of the Established Church in England Excluding Parochial Records (London, 1974Google Scholar); and her ‘Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England 1300–1550: The Records and their Interpretation,” in Studies in Church History 11 (1975) 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Purvis, A Medieval Act Book With Some Account of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction At York (n.d.). Among recent book length works on the subject are: Adams, N. & Donahue, C., eds., Select Cases From The Ecclesiastical Courts of the Province of Canterbury: c. 1200–1301, Selden Society, 95 (London, 1981Google Scholar); Helmholz, R. H., Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1974Google Scholar); Houlbrooke, Ralph, Church Courts and the People During the English Reformation 1520–1570 (Oxford, 1979Google Scholar); Woodcock, B. L., Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (Oxford, 1952Google Scholar); Wunderli, R., London Church Courts and Society on the Eve of the Reformation (Cambridge, Mass. 1981Google Scholar).

7. Elton, G. R., England 1200-1640 (Ithaca, 1969) 105Google Scholar.

8. There is a certain anachronism, of course, in the use of the phrase ‘criminal law’ to describe the medieval jurisdiction of the royal courts over picas of the crown or felonies. See generally, Harding, A., A Social History of English Law (Baltimore, 1966) 61–76Google Scholar. The phrase is used here to refer to those activities which were the subject of indictment at common law.

9. For a concise introduction to the canonical texts, see Kemp, E. W., An Introduction to Canon Law in the Church of England (London, 1957Google Scholar); William W. Bassett, ‘Canon Law and the Common Law,’ 29 Hastings Law Journal (1978) 1383.

10. The fifth book of the Decretales of Gregory IX, for instance, contains titles dealing with homicide, theft, rape, arson and counterfeiting. See Friedberg, E. A., ed., Corpus Iuris Canonici, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879) 793 822Google Scholar. References to this collection will be given hereinafter to book, title, and chapter, e.g., X 5.12.1.

11. The opinion is clearly set out in Boich, Henricus, Commentaria in Libros Decretalium, X 5.34.6 (Nos inter alios) no. 9 (Venice, 1576 ed.) 222Google Scholar.

12. X 5.34.6; two other canonical texts to which frequent reference was made were the decretal of Innocent III, Novit, X 2.1.13, on which see Tierney, B., The Crisis of Church and State 1050-1300 (Englewood Cliffs, 1964) 134-35, 153Google Scholar and the decretal of Lucius III, Cum sit generale, X 2.2.8.

13. X 5.34.6 s.v. deficientibus: ‘Sed nunquid episcopus potest de quolibet crimine contra parochianum suum taliter procedere? Non credo.’ Innocent IV, Apparatus in V Libros Decretalium, X 5.34.6, no. I (Frankfurt, 1570 ed.) 538vGoogle Scholar: ‘[S]iergo coram eo prius non inducuntur probationes, quia non pertinet ad eum cognitio, quomodo indiceretur purgatio?’

14. See H. Boich, supra note 11, X 5.34.6, no. 8: ‘[A]lias frustra videretur commissus gladius domino temporali quia sic ratione cuiuslibet criminis tota iurisdictio ad ecclesiam pertineret.’

15. See, e.g., Hostiensis, , Lectura in Libros Decretalium, X 5.34.6, no. 2 (Venice, 1581 ed.) 90vGoogle Scholar: ‘Nam generaliter de quolibet mortali peccato spectat cognitio et examinatio et correctio ad episcopum.’

16. E.g., de Butrio, Antonius, Commentaria, X 5.34.6, no. 7 (Venice, 1578 ed.) 101Google Scholar: ‘[P]redicta vera prout episcopus vult imponere penam temporalem et ad hunc: finem inducere purgationem. Secus si velit procedure ad penam penitentialem quia quo ad istam quilibet subiectus est ecclesie.’

17. See, e.g., Panormitanus, , Commentaria in Libros Decretalium, X 5.34.6, no. 2 (Lyons, 1562 ed.) 162Google Scholar: ‘Item iste textus loquitur indistincte et intelligendus est ergo indistincte.’ de Baysio, Guido, Rosarium Decretorum at Episcopus, C 6 q. 2 c. 1 (Venice, 1481 ed.)Google Scholar n.p.: ‘Sed litter a textus istius decretalis facit pro primo dicto si bene videatur.’

18. Andreae, Joannes, Novella Commentaria, X 5.34.6, no. 2 (Venice, 1581 ed.) 112vGoogle Scholar: ‘[E]piscopus qui subditorum crimina non corrigit magis dicendus est canis impudicus quam episcopus.’

19. See, e.g., Gray, J. W., ‘The lus Praesentandi in England from the Constitutions of Clarendon to Bracton,’ English History Review lxvii (1965) 481CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donahue, Charles Jr., ‘Roman Canon Law in the Medieval English Church: Stubbs vs. Maitland Re-examined after 74 years in Light of some Records from the Church Courts,’ 72 Michigan Law Review (1974) 647CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Helmholz, R. H., ‘Debt Claims and Probate Jurisdiction in Historical Perspective,’ American Journal of Legal History 23 (1979) 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. See Pollock, F. & Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward 1, 2d ed. 2 vols., (Cambridge, 1968) ii, 458–66Google Scholar. A recent example of the standard understanding of events, relevant to a topic of current interest, is Jacobs, , ‘The Concept of Restitution: an Historical Overview,’ in Hudson, J. and Galaway, B., eds., Restitution in Criminal Justice (Lexington, 1975) 45, 46–48Google Scholar.

21. See Stubbs, W., Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, From the Earliest Times to the Reign of Edward the First, 9th ed., (Oxford, 1921Google Scholar).

22. See Flahiff, G. B., ‘The Writ of Prohibition to Court Christian in the Thirteenth Century,’ Mediaeval Studies VI (1944) 279–80Google Scholar. See also Strange v. Forster (King's Bench 1413-15), in Storey, R. L., ‘Clergy and Common Law in the Reign of Henry IV,’ in Hunnisett, R. F. and Post, J. B., eds., Medieval Legal Records Edited in Memory of C. A. F. Meekings (London, 1978) 341, 377–81Google Scholar.

23. See Gabel, L., Benefit of Clergy in England in the Later Middle Ages (Northampton, 1929Google Scholar); Wright, J. R., The Church and the English Crown 1305-1334 (Toronto, 1980) 217–22Google Scholar; Pugh, R. B., Some Reflections of a Medieval Criminologist (London, 1973) 9–10Google Scholar; Jones, W. R., ‘Relations of the Two Jurisdictions: Conflict and Cooperation in England during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,’ Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History vii (1970) 178–92Google Scholar.

24. See the writ Circumspecte Agatis (1286), in Powicke, F. and Cheney, C. R., eds., Councils & Synods With Other Documents Relating to the English Church, A.D. 1205-1313, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1964) ii, 974–75Google Scholar. The foundation of the canon law on the subject is found in a constitution of the Second Lateran Council (1139), Si quis suadente C. 17 q. 4 c. 29, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, i, 822.

25. The evidence from the royal courts on the first point is largely negative in character, that is, the absence of a specific writ of prohibition to cover it, the lack of litigated cases on the subject in the Yearbooks, and the stated assumption by the bishops to the king that they had valid jurisdiction over it. See, e.g., the Council of Merton and Westminister (1258), in Councils & Synods,supra note 24, 1, 573–74; Flahiff, supra note 22. The special status of property appurtenant to a church is, however, explicitly recognized in 44 Lib. Ass. f. 29, no. 8 (1370); Plucknett, T. F. T. & Barton, J. L., eds., St. German's Doctor and Student, Selden Society 91 (London, 1974) 323–24Google Scholar. On theft of ecclesiastical goods, see A. Fitzherbert, Graunde Abridgement (London, 1565) at Prohibition, no. 14. On the canon law, see, e.g., Lyndwood, W., Provinciale (Seu Constitutiones Angliae) (Oxford, 1679) 258Google Scholar at sacrilegi; C. 17, q. 4 c. 21. (Quisquis,) in Corpus Iuris Canonici i, 820.

26. For an explicit holding from the royal courts, see ‘W. de Merton's case,’ in Owen, Dorothy M., ed., John Lydford's Book (London, 1974) 69–70Google Scholar.

27. E.g., J. Purvis, supra note 6, 4. Of the 3,640 offenses recorded in the York Act book of the Dean and Chapter's court, D/C A B 1 (1396-1485), 3,236 were sexual offenses. See also Dunning's Introduction to Hale, W., A Series of Precedents and Proceedings in Criminal Causes, 1475–1640 (Edinburgh, 1973Google Scholar).

28. The cases are found in Canterbury Act book X 1.1, 99r, 1004, 1134, 118v, 121r, 121v, 123v, 126r, 126v and 128r.

29. Taken from Hereford Act books 0/2, 31; 0/3, 119, 163; 0/4, 44, 121, 123.

30. Taken from London Act books MS. 9064/1, 12r, 30v, 42r, 55r.

31. Canterbury Act book X 1.1, 118v: ‘…quod intraret quandam communem cloacham infra libertatem de Fordesham et … hominem nomine Clays Torneluisson alias lame Wilbore a quo manu forti et furtive aufferret xx marcas in auro et argento.’

32. Hereford Act book 0/2, 31: ‘…commisit crimen furti videlicet quod felonice cepit xii oves de bonis predicte partis ree die martis proximo post festum sancti Bartholomei ultimo preteritum.’

33. Norwich Acta and Comperta Roll 84: ‘Nicholaus Bosyn de Hyndolveston notatur super crimine furti quod ipse furasset equum Willelmi Scheryngham.’

34. York Act book Cons. A B 5, 14v: ‘…diffamatur super eo quod ipse unum pannum lineum album Johannis Tramell nequiter et iniuste [cepit].’

35. The largest amount found in a theft case is £25; London Act book MS. 9064/2, 265v (1488), brought against Richard Barker for theft of that amount in the county of Hertford.

36. Some of these were killings within the immediate family: e.g., Canterbury Act book Y 1.10, 30 (1469), in which ‘Johannes Home de Heth notatur quod occidit uxorem suam.’ These might possibly have been relevant to the decision of matrimonial causes. See Helmholz, Marriage Litigation, supra note 6, 94. However, this was not universally true, for there are instances where no such relationship apparently existed: Rochester Act book DRb Pa 2, 46r (1446), in which Nicholas Romeshed was accused of multiple killings, or Hereford Act book 0/3, 163 (1446), in which Nicholas Chynne was accused of the attempted murder of John Aylburton, or Canterbury Act book Y 1.10, 23v (1469), in which Clement Gyott was accused of ‘being a homicide.’

37. London Act book MS. 9064/1, 12r (1470), an ex officio prosecution against Stephan Bray for ‘fabricationem false monete et presertim false monete auree et quod ipsemet excambium fecit monete huiusmodi.’

38. Canterbury Act book Chartae Antiquae A 36 iv, 105v (1318), an ex officio proceeding against Richard son of John Ponte.

39. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 2, 134v (1460), a prosecution against four men for breaking the house of H. Estall at night, coupled however with the commission of other crimes.

40. York Act book D/C A B 1, 115v (1451), the purgation of John Smyth for receiving stolen goods belonging to John Pluckett.

41. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 3, 343v (1458), a prosecution against John Hanschawe, who admitted the crime and was assigned public penance.

42. See Elvey, E. M., ed., The Courts of the Archdeaconry of Buckingham 1483-1523, Buckinghamshire Record Society xix, (1975) 29Google Scholar.

43. See, e.g., the treatment and references in W. Lyndwood, Provinciale, supra note 25, 347 at crimen.

44. See Kellum, , ‘Infanticide in England in the Later Middle Ages,’ History of Childhood Quarterly 1 (1974) 367Google ScholarPubMed; Hammer, supra note 3, 13; Means, Cyril C. Jr., ‘The Phoenix of Abortional Freedom,’ 17 New York Law Forum (1971) 335Google Scholar.

45. See Helmholz, R. H., ‘Infanticide in the Province of Canterbury during the Fifteenth Century,’ History of Childhood Quarterly 2 (1972) 379Google Scholar.

46. Canterbury Act book Y 1.11, 11r (1469); Nicholas Whitfield was cited because ‘vi voluit cognoscere carnaliter Benedictam at Walt. ‘See also Rochester Act book DRb Pa 1, 49v (1446), an ex officio proceeding against Robert Bocheer who allegedly ‘vires suos et operas dedit ad carnaliter commiscendum cum uxore Johannis Godebour.’

47. Canterbury book X 8.3, 82v.

48. See Sayre, Francis Bowes, ‘Criminal Aspects,’ 41 Harvard Law Review (1941) 821CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stephen, J. F., History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. (London, 1883) ii, 221–25Google Scholar.

49. Hereford Act book 0/4, 44: ‘…crimen furti, videlicet quod ipsa furtive surripuisset iii flammeola de bonorum predicte Margarete locatorum.’ On the common law, see Stephen, supra note 48, i, 139–40; Fletcher, G. P., Rethinking Criminal Law (Boston, 1978) at 66-70, 83–6Google Scholar; Brickey, Kathleen F., ‘The Jurisprudence of Larceny: an Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis,’ 33 Vanderbilt Law Review (1980) 1126Google Scholar.

50. London Act book MS. 9064/4, 61: ‘Isabella Croste furtive abstulit serta (sic) bona Agnetis Effomato …quia dicta Isabella custodivit eadem tempore infirmitatis sue.’

51. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 6, 132r (1515). On the common law, see Stephen, supra note 48, iii. 149.

52. See, e.g., the printed examples in The Court of the Archdeaconry of Buckingham 1483-1523, supra note 42, 23, 224,291. On the common law, see Bellamy, J. G., Crime and Public Order in England in the Later Middle Ages (London, 1973) 62–3Google Scholar.

53. The principle was many times stated both in the canon law texts and by medieval canonists. See, e.g., the decretal Ex tenore literarum comitis (X 2.2.11), in Corpus Iuris Canonici ii, 251; Hostiensis, , Summa Aurea, tit. de foro competenti, no. 11 (Venice, 1574 ed.) 461Google Scholar: ‘Item quando iudex secularis iustitiam reddere negligit.’

54. E.g., Hingeston-Randolph, F. C., ed., Register of Walter De Stepeldon, Bishop of Exeter A.D. 1307-1326 (London, 1892) 3Google Scholar.

55. E.g., the papers from the diocesan court at Lincoln (Lines. Archives, Box 80, 16th Century) invariably contain information about the secular procedure. The Act book for the archbishop of Canterbury's Court of Audience (Lambeth Palace MS. 244, 42v, 1305) contains one such case, but the circumstances of the secular court proceedings are fully set out. See also Owen, ed., John Lydford's Book, supra note 26, 60.

56. Hereford Act book 1/1, 121.

57. Canterbury Act book Y 1.10, 259 v: ‘…quod polluit cimiterium de Lympne predicta in percutiendo Johannem Clerk et sanquinem eius effundendo ibidem.’

58. See generally Helmholz, R. H., ‘Writs of Prohibition and Ecclesiastical Sanctions in the English Courts Christian,’ 60 Minnesota Law Review 1011 (1976Google Scholar); and Helmholz, R. H., ‘The Writ of Prohibition to Court Christian before 1500,’ Mediaeval Studies xliii (1981) 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59. See the decretals Quotiens Tridentinus, X 5.34.5 in Corpus Iuris Canonici ii, 870, and De testibus (X 5.34.13) in Corpus Iuris Canonici ii, 875.

60. E.g., Panormitanus, Commentaria, supra note 17, at Cum oporteat, X 5.1.19, no. 2, 67: ‘Nota quod licet per inquisitionem nihil sit probatum contra infamatum tamen simpliciter non absolvitur reus sed inductur sibi purgatio propter infamiam.’

61. See Assize of Clarendon, c. 1 (1166), in Stubbs, Select Charters, supra note 21, 170. There are illuminating discussions in Milsom, supra note 2, 506–09, and Hyams, Paul R., ‘Trial by Ordeal: the Key to Proof in the Early Common Law,’ in Arnold, Morris et al. , ed., On the Law and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thorne (Chapel Hill, 1981) 121–23Google Scholar.

62. Panormitanus, supra note 17, Cum oporteat (X 5.1.19), rubr., 66v: ‘non inimici vel periuri sed idonei viri.’

63. See, e.g., Innocent IV, Apparatus, supra note 13, at no. 1, 490v-491r: ‘Item debent adjicere, quod clamosa et non tacita est infamia, et est tanta, quod quasi facit manifestum crimen eius.’ Authorization for making this exception and forms for doing so is found in an English formulary (15th century), British Library Royal MS. 11 A XI, 83.

64. See Panormitanus, supra note 17, ad id., nos. 8–10 67v. He goes on to note the ‘questio subtilis et notabilis et quotidiana’ of whether, the fame having been proved by the preliminary inquest, the accused had the right to produce witnesses of his own to prove that there was no such fame.

65. Exeter Act book, Chanter MS. 777. Thursday before Palm Sunday 1530 (7 April): ‘Quo die comparuit Jacobus Borow detectus apud officio de arte magica …respondebat negative sed quia publica fama laborat contra eum iudex assignavit eidem ad purgandum se quinta manu.’

66. E.g., Lichfield Act book B/C/2/1, 65v (1525): the witness deposing to the article relating to fame, ‘Ad quartum dicit quod credit famam non laborare.’

67. Chichester Act book Ep 1/10/1, 34r (1507). Examples from other dioceses are: Rochester Act book DRb Pa 6, 146r (1516): ‘Memorandum ad inquirandum de fama Katerine Bylton.’ St. Alban's Act book ASA 7/1, 6r (1516): ‘[Iudex] decrevit descendendum fore ad inquirendum super fama et super veritate criminis.’ Salisbury Act book 3, 22v (1565): ‘…unde dominus decrevit inquisitionem fieri ad inquirendum de fama predicta etc. ‘An example of a record of the inquisition itself, apparently returned to the diocesan court, is found in Canterbury, Sede Vacante Scrapbook iii, 22 (1273).

68. E.g., Panormitanus, supra note 17, at Accedens, X 5.34.14, no. 4, 164r: ‘…et existente vera probatione cessat purgatio.’

69. E.g., Rochester Act book DRb Pa 2, 96r (1448): ‘Et facta proclamatione ut moris est…’ Such a proclamation seems not absolutely to have been required under canon law, although the principle which underlay it was to be observed in some appropriate fashion. A judge was required to set a term for appearance by those who wished to object and to prove the crime. See Antonius de Butrio, supra note 16, at Inter sollicitudines (X 5.34.10) no. 21, 102r.

70. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 3, 323r. An example from the Northern Province, York D/C A B 1, 115v( 1451) records the purgation of John Smyth accused of theft: ‘et super hoc incontinenti purgavit se octava manu honestorum vicinorum suorum preconizatis primitus publice tunc ibidem omnibus et singulis interesse in hac parte se habere pretendentibus ac citatis specialiter in hac parte domino Willelmo Osgoodby capellano et Richardo Steresake ibidem etiam comparentibus et nichil contradicentibus.’

71. See Antonius de Butrio, supra note 16, at Quotiens, X 5.34.5 no. 14, lOOv: ‘[T]amen denuncians si non probat, puniri debet extraordinaria pena arbitrio iudicis.

72. Chichester Act book EP 1/10/2, 55r (1520). The entry from a Canterbury case put the procedure succinctly: Canterbury Act book X 1.1, 43v (1453); ‘Quo die magister Johnannes Bred contradicit purgationi dicti Edmundi [Broksall] et habet ad primo producendum.’ Other examples: Hereford Act book 0/2, 31 (1442); Rochester Act book DRb Pa 2, 96r(1448); London Act book MS 9064/1, 42r (1470); Ely Act book EDR D/2/l, 63r (1377); Winchester Court book 1, 122v (1517); York Act book D/C A B 1, 104r (1443).

73. E.g., Hereford Act book i/1, 178 (1493): John ap Jenner had reclaimed at the proclamation of the purgation of Elizabeth Lewys, but when appearing before the Consistory court, ‘pars reclamans fatebatur quod reclamavit contra purgacionem nec tamen vult prosequi reclamacionem suam unde index imposuit eidem silencium.’

74. See. e.g.. Antonius de Butrio, supra note 16, at Inter sollicitudines, X 5.34.10 no. 24, 102r.

75. This is fully spelled out in a sixteenth century entry from Winchester Act book 3, 113r (1567): ‘[I]udex ad statim ad ipsius Simonis examinationem processit quo quidem Simon sic per iudicem examinatus respondebat dictis articulis prout in fine cuiuslibet articuli continetur et paulo post dominus assignavit eum ad purgandum se super per eum confessatis sua sexta manu honestorum virorum vicinorum etc.’

76. See, e.g., the decretal Cum P. Manconella (X 5.34.7), in Corpus Iuris Canonici ii, 871. The canonical requirements are well set out in L. Gabel, Benefit of Clergy, supra note 23, 102-04.

77. Canterbury Act book X 1.1, 37r: ‘…quod dicti compurgatores sunt participes eiusdem criminis.’

78. Hereford Act book 0/5, 139: ‘…quod vir non purgavit se cum vicinis sed cum aliis extraneis.’

79. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 2, 18v: ‘…quia huiusmodi compurgatores non erant de loco ubi delictum fuit commissum.’

80. E.g., Canterbury Act book X 1.1, 126r(1457): ‘Thomas Smyth de parochia de Button Blen notatur quod ipse furatus fuit…comparet et purgatus est cum Thoma Denyngton, Willelmo Hull, Stephano Han, Johanne Heth, [et] Nicholao Fyssher.’ See also, Emmison, F. G., Elizabethan Life: Morals and the Church Courts (Chelmsford, 1973) 292Google Scholar.

81. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 2, 46r (1446).

82. Canterbury Act book X 1.1, 32v (1451).

83. E.g., Canterbury Act book X 8.3, 56r(1464); Bath and Wells Act book D/D/Ca3, 68 (c. 1530): ‘…legitime se purgavit in domo Roberti Roper de Crokhorne.’

84. Canterbury Act book X 1.1, 105r (1455): ‘…quia voluerunt se purgare in aliena ecclesia et non in sua.’

85. Pollock & Maitland, History of English Law, supra note 20, i, 443. The classic treatment of the subject is Lea, H. C., Superstition and Force, 2nd ed. (New York, 1971) 1–84Google Scholar.

86. Emmison, Elizabethan Life, supra note 80, 294.

87. Bellamy, Crime & Public Order, supra note 52, 144.

88. Hill, Christopher, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (London, 1967) 310Google Scholar.

89. Emmison, Elizabethan Life, supra note 80, 296; Houlbrooke, Church Courts, supra note 6, 45.

90. Often the Act books simply do not record an outcome of the purgation, but, for example, of the seven cases of secular crimes entered in Canterbury Act book X 1.1 (1453–57) in which a result was recorded, all seven attempts at purgation were successful.

91. It was possible however, to fail. For instance, in 1420 at Canterbury, it was recorded that Thomas Moreys ‘defecisse in purgatione’ in a case involving an accusation of theft of some cloth. (Act book Y 1.4, 26v)

92. See, e.g., the conclusion of L. Gabel, Benefit of Clergy, supra note 23, 104: ‘The circumstance which perhaps more than any other discredits purgation is the fact that the records furnish so few instances of failure.’

93. See Kalven, H. & Zeisel, H., The American Jury (Boston, 1966) 20Google Scholar.

94. Kimball, Elizabeth G., A Cambridgeshire Gaol Delivery Roll 1332–1334, Cambridge Antiquarian Records Society 4 (1978) 26Google Scholar.

95. Hanawalt, Barbara, Crime in East Anglia in the Fourteenth Century, Norfolk Record Society, xliv (Norwich, 1976) 20Google Scholar.

96. Green, Thomas A., ‘The Jury and the English Law of Homicide, 1200–1600,’ 74 Michigan Law Review (1976) 431CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Bellamy, Crime & Public Order, supra note 52, 157-61; R. B. Pugh, Medieval Criminologist, supra note 23, 7; J. Given, Society & Homicide, supra note 4, 140; Meekings, C. A. F., The 1235 Surrey Eyre, Surrey Record Society xxxi (1979) 126Google Scholar.

97. See, e.g., Given, Society & Homicide, supra note 4, 105; Hanawalt, Crime in East Anglia, supra note 95, 20; Bellamy, Crime & Public Order, supra note 52, 161. But cf. Elton, G. R., Policy and Police: The Enforcement of the Reformation in the Age of Thomas Cromwell (Cambridge, 1972) 310Google Scholar, emphasizing the problems of prejudice and local influence which were equally at home with the system.

98. There are instructive parallels with common law procedure noted in Pugh, R. B., ‘The Writ de Bono et Malo’ 92 Law Quarterly Review (1976) 258Google Scholar.

99. See G. R. Elton, ‘Introduction: Crime and the Historian,’ in Crime in England, supra note 1, 13; Hogan, M. Patricia. ‘Medieval Villany: A Study in the Meaning and Control of Crime in an English Village,’ in Studies of Medieval and Renaissance History ii, new series, ii (1979) 123Google Scholar; Summerson, H. R. T., ‘The Structure of Law Enforcement in Thirteenth Century England,’ American Journal of Legal History 23 (1979) 313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100. See the decretal Quum in iuventute, X 5.34.12, in Corpus Iuris Canonici ii, 874.

101. York Act book D/C A B 1, 180r: ‘…graviter diffamati ut asseruerunt super eo quod ipsi falso nequiter et iniuste aucas et porcellos diversorum vicinorum suorum de Ricall predicta furtive …cepissent et furati fuissent.’

102. Ibid. ‘…instanter petierunt a domino auditore diem sibi assignari ad purgandum se et eorum cuilibet.’

103. There are several other examples where this was expressly stated: Lincoln Act book Cj/1, 13r (1498); Rochester Act book DRb Pa 2, 29r (1445); ibid, 42r (1446); St. Alban's Act book ASA 7/1, 22v (1520); York Act book Cons. A B 5, 14v (1503). A printed example from 1402 in which publicity of innocence of the charge complicity in murder and robbery was the apparent aim is found in Smith, W. E. L., ed., The Register of Richard Clifford Bishop of Worcester, 1401–07, (Toronto, 1976) no. 161Google Scholar. Such a case has also found its way into the archives of the royal Chancery; Public Record Office, London C 270/34/12 (1338) a case from the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield involving forgery.

104. See text accompanying footnotes 51-52.

105. See Jones, supra note 23, 202.

106. On the role of juries, see, e.g., Green, ‘The Jury & the Law of Homicide,'supra note 96; Wells, Charles L., ‘Early Opposition to the Petty Jury in Criminal Cases,’ 30 Law Quarterly Review (1914) 97Google Scholar.

107. E.g., York Act book Cons. A B 5, 13r (1503); [P]urgatus restitutus fuit ad suam pristinam bonam famam.’ Canterbury Act book X 8.3, 94v (1466); ‘…quibus iuratis restituit ipsam pristine fame.’

108. E.g., Norwich Act book ACT/1, 3 December 1509: ‘ideo dominus commissarius restituit eundem ad bonam famam in quantum de iure fieri poterit et decrevit eidem literas testimoniales super eisdem.’ See also B. Woodcock, ‘Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts,'supra note 6, 27. An actual certificate of purgation from the thirteenth century can be found in Canterbury Sede Vacante Scrapbook iii, no. 78 (c. 1293).

109. E.g., Lincoln Act book Cj/1, 13r (1498): ‘…mandando quod nullus eundem Willelmum super dicto crimine [theft] de cetero diffamet sub pena excommunicationis maioris.’

110. See, e.g., Hostiensis, , Summa Aurea, tit. de officio iudicis no. 3 (Venice, 1574 ed.) 343Google Scholar: ‘Lites dirimere, …. Partes ad compositionem faciendam inducere.’

111. R. Houlbrooke, Church Courts, supra note 6, 46; see also C. Hill Society & Puritanism, supra note 88, 310–11.

112. See text accompanying note 70.

113. Hereford Act book 0/2, 31: ‘…et sic dicta pars actrix purgavit se ix manu rea expresse consentiente.’

114. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 2, 42r: ‘…et partes compromiserunt causam et onmes alias inter eas in [named arbitrators].’

115. Canterbury Act book X 8.3, 82v: ‘D]imissa quia partes sunt Concordes.’

116. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 6. 132r (1515).

117. Rochester Act book DRb Pa 3. 519r (1466): ‘[Fatebatur] sibi de lesione sua … videlicet castratione eiusdem fuisse et esse satisfactum et concordiam inter eos factam.’

118. This is clearest in ex officio prosecutions for ‘spiritual’ crimes like adultery, where the Church courts held the principal responsibility for enforcement of contemporary moral standards.

119. See note 53.

120. See Pollock & Maitland, History of English Law, supra note 20, ii, 458.

121. Green, Thomas A., ‘Societal Concepts of Criminal Liability for Homicide in Mediaeval England,’ Speculum xlvii (1972) 694Google Scholar. See also Hurnard, N., The King's Pardon For Homicide Before A.D. 1307 (Oxford, 1969) 198–202Google Scholar; Clanchy, Michael,’A Medieval Realist: Interpreting the Rules at Barnwell Priory,’ in Attwool, E., ed., Perspectives in Jurisprudence (Glasgow, 1977) 176Google Scholar; Hanawalt, Barbara A., ‘Community Conflict and Social Control: Crime and Justice in the Ramsey Abbey Villages,’ Mediaeval Studies xxxix (1977) 402CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenthal, Joel T., ‘Feuds and Private Peace-Making: a Fifteenth-Century Example,’ Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, xiv (1970) 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Soman, Alfred, ‘Deviance and Criminal Justice in Western Europe, 1300–1800,’ Criminal Justice History i (1980) 3Google Scholar.

122. The modern relevance of this question, with citations to recent literature, is discussed in Barnett, Randy E., ‘The Justice of Restitution,’ 25 American Journal of Jurisprudence (1980) 119–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

123. See, e.g., Perkins, R. M., Criminal Law, 2d ed. (Mineola, 1969) 518–22Google Scholar, giving the rule an Anglo-Saxon origin.