Law and order
At the heart of the tenth-century state was the oath, taken by all freemen from the age of 12, to abstain from and denounce any major crime. This common oath enshrined the sense of social community and responsibility that underpinned the law. In this light, theft was seen as an act of disloyalty. If you had broken your oath and committed a serious crime your entire kin could be punished. In the old days the local assembly or the king's court would try you. In the new Anglo-Saxon state there was a hierarchy of courts in each shire and borough, and revamped local courts known as 'hundred' courts.
The presiding officials of these courts were, in effect, local agents of the king - royal appointees. Local cases would be heard in the hundred courts and it was the obligation of the hundred to find the miscreant and bring him back to face justice and, if necessary, to punish the kin.
The hundred would organise the pursuit of notable criminals who fled, and punishment could include exile - you could be transported with your kin group to a completely different part of the country. Harsh methods, to be sure, but these were harsh times.
'The Christian king must severely punish wicked men... He must be merciful and yet austere; that is the king's right - and that is the way to get things done in a nation.' - Archbishop Wulfstan
Crime and violence were the central problem for the early English kings, all the more so as they were Christians who saw it as their job to be Christ's vicar on earth. In one of his law codes, King Athelstan is recorded apologising for the bad state of public order: 'I am sorry my peace is kept so badly. My advisors say I have put up with it too long'.
'King Athelstan... was concerned about the number of young people being executed ... '
With brutal punishments at their disposal, it would have been easy for a king to respond with an iron fist. Which makes the mitigating touches of humanity that we occasionally find all the more touching. King Athelstan, for example, is reported saying to his councillors that he was concerned about the number of young people being executed under the death penalty, 'as he sees everywhere is the case'.
In his day, the penalty could be enforced on anyone 12 years old or over, but the king raised the age of criminal responsibility to 16 because, as he said simply, 'it is too cruel'. That, remember, is around 930, while as late as the early 19th century there are cases of ten, nine and even eight year olds being executed for sheep stealing!
The story provides a salutary warning against having a patronising attitude to the people of the past, or assuming our ancestors of 1,000 years ago were more cruel, or less civilised, than we are. This was a genuine effort to create a humane government, however unpalatable some of its methods may seem to us now, and however ineffectual the king sometimes admitted they were at the time.
