DISCUSSION
This was one of a number of old crimes reviewed by the king's justices
in eyre, authorized to examine various types of offences infringing
royal laws. There had been no previous eyre in London since 1226.
Consequently, in the case of the older crimes, many of the accused were
no longer to be found, or had died in prison, while many of the witnesses
(including neighbours, who were expected to be in the know) had likewise
died. The account of the case is a summary of key developments in
the proceedings. These accounts, and possibly the proceedings themselves,
showed far less interest in the motives for crimes something
hard to arrive at anyway in the frequent absence of victim (usually dead)
and accused (usually disappeared) than in which parties could
be fined or what possessions of the accused or deodands (instruments
by which a crime was committed, forfeit to the crown) could be
confiscated.
There are several instances here indicative of the important role of
private citizens, individually or collectively, in bringing wrongdoers
to justice. Alice attempts a citizen's arrest on the attacker of her
son, and summons the neighbourhood to her assistance and
to witness the results of the crime (so that later in court they can
assist with Robert's conviction) by raising hue-and-cry.
This was probably an obligation at first, although subject to abuse
some citizens raising the hue at the slightest provocation; at the
1276 eyre, the London authorities were claiming that raising hue-and-cry
and pursuing criminals was optional for a neighbourhood, and failure
to do so should not result in a fine.
In 1231, however, the neighbours take responsibility for escorting Robert
to where he can be secured until Adam's fate is determined. The
inhabitants of the ward are collectively blamed for Robert's escape
since they cannot claim ignorance, they must accept responsibility and
face a fine. There are numerous other cases among the London eyre
records of the 13th century in which the community of a ward is fined
for failing to report something suspicious or being ignorant of
activities within ward boundaries.
Finally, reference is made to Robert's frankpledge, a group of friends
or neighbours which has some responsibility for knowing the whereabouts
of its members and providing mutual guarantees of good behaviour.
Frankpledges were often fined by the 1244 eyre for failing in their
duty. In this case Robert must have been associated with extra-mural
property held by Bukerel since he belonged to Bukerel's household but
was not a London resident.
By contrast, the city authorities take care to avoid any risk of being
fined themselves, by arguing that Robert was not a citizen and therefore
they could not be held responsible for his actions.