Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Frankpledge
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{Short description|System of surety in medieval England}} {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} '''Frankpledge''' was a system of joint [[surety]]ship common in [[England]] throughout the [[Early Middle Ages]] and [[High Middle Ages]]. The essential characteristic was the compulsory sharing of responsibility among persons connected in [[tithing]]s. This unit, under a leader known as the chief-pledge or [[tithing]]-man, was then responsible for producing any man of that tithing suspected of a crime. If the man did not appear, the entire group could be [[Amercement|fined]].<ref>Kenneth F. Duggan "The Limits of Strong Government: Attempts to Control Criminality in Thirteenth-Century England" ''Historical Research'' 93:261 (2020) pp. 402β409</ref> While women, clergy, and the richer freemen were exempt, otherwise all men over 12 years of age were organised in the system for mutual surety.<ref>Z. Razi ed., ''Medieval Society and the Manor Court'' (1996) p. 408</ref> ==Origins== The first mention of frankpledge comes in 1114β1118, with the ''[[Leges Henrici Primi]]''; but 12th-century figures like [[William of Malmesbury]] were keen to link it to pre-Norman times, and to the laws of [[Canute the Great]].<ref>J. Hudson, ''The Formation of English Common Law'' (2014), pp. 63β64</ref> Some historians have indeed seen in the Anglo-Saxon '''frith-borh''' (literally "peace-pledge"<ref>Smith (1857:230) notes: "The Anglo-Saxon term for the ''{{`}}view of frank-pledge{{`}}''  is ''{{`}}frith-borh{{`}}''  β literally 'peace-pledge'. The term ''{{`}}frith{{`}}''  became, by a very natural blunder, corrupted into ''{{`}}free{{`}}'' ; and so (in the Norman French) the compound word was converted into ''Frank-pledge''."</ref>) the clear anticipation of frankpledge; others consider the 12th-century commentators were reading back into earlier times the later concept, and that the borh system was much less rigid and comprehensive than frankpledge.<ref>W. A. Morris, ''The Medieval English Sheriff'' (Manchester 1968), p. 26</ref> On this view, [[William the Conqueror]], with the revival of [[murdrum]] with respect to the French invaders, played an important role in systematically and universally making the tithing adopt compulsory frankpledge,<ref>[[David C. Douglas]], ''William the Conqueror'' (London 1966), p. 314</ref> so as to increase and consolidate the power of the [[Norman conquest of England|Normans]] and to establish a more stringent policy.<ref>Thorpe (1845:334).</ref> ==Anglo-Saxon sureties== The borh was a system of surety whereby individuals β a family member, a master for servants, a lord for dependents β became responsible for producing others in court in event of misdemeanors.<ref>G. O. Sayles, ''The Medieval Foundations of England'' (London 1967) p. 188</ref> At the same time, late Anglo-Saxon society increasingly shared responsibility in legal matters in groups of ten. The group was referred to as a ''teothung'' or ''[[Tithing (country subdivision)|tything]]'', i.e. a "[[Thing (assembly)|thing]] (assembly) of ten men".<ref>Cf. Stubbs (1906:12β13). It is probable that the households of the men were also to be included, and the tything could thus be seen as a "thing of ten households". Cf. Pearson (1867:250β1). To aid in the effort of administration, [[Canute the Great|King Canute II]] the Great of [[Denmark]] and [[England]] (d. 1035) declared that men be organized into [[Hundred (administrative division)|hundreds]], a system of division which subsequently became common in the area under the [[Danelaw]], from [[Essex]] to [[Yorkshire]], while the tything remained common in the south and southwest of England.</ref> The tything was under the leadership of a [[Tithing (country subdivision)|tythingman]] chosen from among them, with the responsibility of producing in the court of justice any man of their number who was summoned.<ref>Stubbs (1906:12β13). Above the tythingman was the borhsman, with the next above being the [[borough-head]] or head-borough. Cf. White (1895:200).</ref> The first tythings were entirely voluntary associations, being groups formed through the mutual consent of their free members. The aspect of the system which initially prevented its being made universally compulsory was that only landed individuals could be forced to pay any fines which might be put upon the group: {{Blockquote|the landless man was worthless as a member of a frith-borh, for the law had little hold over a man who had no land to forfeit and no fixed habitation. So the landless man was compelled by law to submit to a [[lord of the manor|manorial lord]], who was held responsible for the behaviour of all his "men"; his estate became, so to speak, a private frith-borh, consisting of dependents instead of the freemen of the public frith-borhs. These two systems, with many variations, existed side by side; but there was a general tendency for the freemen to get fewer and for the lords to grow more powerful.|[[Albert Pollard|Albert F. Pollard]]|''The History of England: A Study in Political Evolution''}} The tithing eventually became a territorial unit, part of the vill, while the eventual merger of borh and tithing underpinned the Norman frankpledge system.<ref>G. O. Sayles, ''The Medieval Foundations of England'' (London 1967) p. 188</ref> In its ultimate form, if an individual did not appear when summoned to court the remaining members of the tithing could swear an oath to the effect that they had no hand in the escape of the summoned man: they would otherwise be held responsible for the deeds of the fugitive and could be forced to pay any fines his actions had incurred.<ref>Stubbs (1906:13).</ref> This examination of the members of the tything before the court is the origin of the phrase "view of frankpledge".<ref>Smith (1857:230).</ref> ==Geography and profits of frankpledge== Frankpledge did not at first take place in Wales or eight Northern and border counties,<ref>J. Green, ''The Government of England under Henry I'' (1989) p. 111</ref> but elsewhere was common in the area under the [[Danelaw]], and in the south and [[South West England|southwest of England]]. By the time of Edward I, however, the sheriff's [[tourn]] also began to appear in shires like Northumberland and Cumberland.<ref>W. A. Morris, ''The Medieval English Sheriff'' (Manchester 1968) p. 203β4</ref> The bi-annual view of frankpledge which was carried out by the sheriff involved payment of a tithing penny to the sheriff,<ref>Z. Razi ed., ''Medieval Society and the Manor Court,'' (1996) p. 408</ref> as well as other opportunities for profit including fines: for this reason exemption from the tourn, or the private takeover of view of frankpledge by lords or boroughs, were valued privileges; while conversely the 1217 [[Magna Carta]] sought explicitly to restrict what the sheriff could legitimately demand of frankpledge.<ref>W. A. Morris, ''The Medieval English Sheriff'' (Manchester 1968) p. 156</ref> ==Later historical development== The frankpledge system began to decline in the 14th century.<ref>Z. Razi ed., ''Medieval Society and the Manor Court'' (1996) p. 408</ref> The extension of centralised royal administration on the one hand,<ref>W. A. Morris, ''The Medieval English Sheriff'' (Manchester 1968) p. 204</ref> and the increasing appropriation of view of frankpledge by private landlords of the other,<ref>M. Bailey, ''The English Manor'' (2002) p. 181</ref> both served to undermine the local system; as too did greater agrarian differentiation and mobility β a process exacerbated by the impact of the [[Black Death]].<ref>J. Simons, ''Poor Discipline'' (1993) p. 19</ref> Nevertheless, the system survived in places into the 15th century,<ref>M. Bailey, ''The English Manor'' (2002) p. 184</ref> although increasingly superseded by [[parish constable|local constable]]s β the former ''chief pledges'' β operating under the [[Justice of the Peace|justices of the peace]]: their oversight represented the remains of ''view of frankpledge''. Ultimately, the principle behind frankpledge still remains in force, in England and Wales, with regard to [[riot]]s. Until the [[Riot (Damages) Act 1886]], members of each [[civil parish]] were, collectively, directly responsible for repaying any damages due to a riot within their area. Under the Act (and [[Riot Compensation Act 2016|its 2016 replacement]]), the damages are indirectly levied on the local population via the police rate (now a component in [[council tax]]) in the relevant local authority area. ==See also== {{Columns-list|colwidth=30em| * [[Frith]] * [[Collective responsibility]] * [[Court leet]] * [[Gonin Gumi]] for a similar institution in [[Tokugawa period|Tokugawa]] Japan * [[Hue and cry]] * [[Neighbourhood watch]] * [[Norman yoke]] }} ==Notes== {{Reflist|2|}} ==References== {{refbegin|indent=yes|30em}} *{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle=Frankpledge |volume=11 |pages=34β35}} *Olson, Trisha. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20100708072743/http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/Frankpledge.htm Frankpledge]", ''[http://law.cua.edu The Catholic University of America - Columbus School of Law]'' *{{cite book | last = Morgan | first = C. Lloyd | title = The Springs of Conduct | url = https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.90626 | publisher = Kegan Paul | year = 1885 | location = London}} *{{cite book | last = Pearson | first = Charles Henry | title = History of England During the Middle Ages, Vol. I | publisher = Bell and Daldy | year = 1867 | location = London}} *{{cite book | last = Pollard | first = Albert F. | title = The History of England: A Study in Political Evolution | url = https://archive.org/details/historyofengland0000poll | publisher = Williams and Norgate | year = 1912 | location = London}} *{{cite book | last = Smith | first = Toulmin | title = The Parish: Its Powers and Obligations at Law | url = https://archive.org/details/parishitspowers01smitgoog | publisher = H. Sweet | year = 1857 | location = London}} *{{cite book | last = Stubbs| first = William | title = Lectures on Early English History | url = https://archive.org/details/lecturesonearlye0000stub| publisher = Longmans, Green, and Co. | year = 1906 | location = London}} *{{cite book | last = Thorpe | first = Benjamin | title = A History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, Vol. II | publisher = John Murray | year = 1845 | location = London}} *{{cite book | last = White | first = Archer M. | title = Outlines of Legal History | url = https://archive.org/details/outlinesoflegalh00whit | publisher = Swan Sonneschein & Co. | year = 1895 | location = London}} {{refend}} ==Further reading== *Duggan, Kenneth F. (2020) "The Limits of Strong Government: Attempts to Control Criminality in Thirteenth-Century England", ''Historical Research'' 93:261, pp. 399β419 *{{cite book|title=[[England and the Continent in the Tenth Century|England and the Continent in the Tenth Century: Studies in Honour of Wilhelm Levison (1876-1947)]]|publisher=Brepols|year=2010|editor-first=David|editor-last=Rollason|editor2-first=Conrad|editor2-last=Leyser|editor3-first=Hannah|editor3-last=Williams|first=David|last=Pratt|chapter=Written Law and the Communication of Authority in Tenth-Century England|isbn=9782503532080}} [[Category:History of law enforcement in the United Kingdom]] [[Category:Medieval English court system]] [[Category:Collective punishment]]
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page
(
help
)
:
Template:Blockquote
(
edit
)
Template:Cite EB1911
(
edit
)
Template:Cite book
(
edit
)
Template:Columns-list
(
edit
)
Template:Comma separated entries
(
edit
)
Template:Main other
(
edit
)
Template:Refbegin
(
edit
)
Template:Refend
(
edit
)
Template:Reflist
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)
Template:Use dmy dates
(
edit
)
Template:`
(
edit
)