How They Died: Coroner's Rolls from the 14th Century, 1322-1337
The Coroner's Office was established in London in 1194, as part of the general legal reform of the English kingdom by Henry II. The official described below was charged with investigating episodes of sudden or unnatural death, and the goal was to satisfy the community at large that the death could be explained. Thereby, the community's psychological needs could be met - but it was also the Coroner's duty to determine whether criminal charges should be brought or financial compensation be assessed. The documents below are from a remarkable series of Coroners' Reports in the 1320s and 1330s. Within these odd (and often tragic) little stories are nuggets that can be used by social historians attempting to reconstruct life in the Late Medieval period.
Source: Calendar of Coroners Rolls of the City of London,1300-1378. ed. R. R. Sharpe, London: Richard Clay and Sons, 1913), 56-57, 63-69, 86-87, 127, 183. Language has been modernized by the editors.
- ON THE DEATH OF ROBERT. SON OF JOHH de ST. BOTULPH
Saturday before the Feast of St. Margaret [20 July] in the year [16 Edward II, A.D. 1322], information was given to the… Coroner and Sheriffs that a certain Robert, son of John de St. Botulph, a boy seven years old, lay dead of a death other than his rightful death in a certain shop which the said Robert held of Richard de Wirhale in the parish of St. Michael de Pater¬nosterchurch in the Ward of Vintry. Thereupon the Coroner and Sheriffs proceeded there and, having summoned good men of that Ward and of the three nearest Wards, namely Douuegate, Queenhithe and Cordewanerstreet, they diligently inquired how it happened. The jurors say that when on the Sunday next before the Feast of St. Dunstan [19 May], [Robert son of] John, Richard son of John de Chesthunt, and two other boys, names unknown, were playing on certain pieces of timber in a lane called "Kyrounelane" in the Ward of Vintry, a certain piece fell on [Robert] and broke his right leg. In the course of time Johanna, his mother, arrived, and rolled the timber off him, and carried him to a shop where he lingered until Friday… when he died at the hour of Prime of the broken leg and of no other felony, nor do they suspect anyone of the death, but only the accident and the fracture. Being asked who were present when it happened, they say the aforesaid Robert, Richard son of John de Chesthunt and two boys whose names they know not and no others.
Four neighbors attached, namely: Richard Daske, by Peter Cosyn and Roger le Roper. Anketin de Gisors, by Robert de Wynton and Andrew de Gloucester. Thomas le Roper, by Richard de Colyngstoke and Thomas atte March. John Amys, by John de Shirbourne and John de Lincoln. - ON THE DEATH OF NICHOLAS. SERVANT TO SIMON de KNOTTYNGLEY
On Monday in Pentecost week the year [A.D. 1324], it happened that Nicholas, the servant of Simon de Knottyngley, lay killed before the gate of the house of William de Pomfreit in the high street in the parish of St. Botulph de Bisshopsgate…. On hearing this, the… Coroner and Sheriffs proceeded there, and having summoned good men of that Ward and of the three nearest Wards…, they diligently inquired how it happened. The jurors say that on that Monday, at break of day, William de la March, the late palfrey-man [a type of groom] of Henry de Percy, Thomas the servant of Henry de Percy's cook, John the servant to Henry Krok, who was Henry's esquire, assaulted, beat and wounded Nicholas in the house held by Alice de Witteney, a courtesan, whose landlord was John de Assheby…. William de la March struck Nicholas with a knife called an "Irishknife" under the right breast and penetrating to the belly, inflicting a wound an inch long and in depth half through the body. [Nicholas] thus wounded went from there to the place where he was found dead, where he died at daybreak of the same day. Being asked what became of the said William, Thomas and John, the jurors say that they immediately fled, but where they went or who received them they know not, nor do they suspect any one except those three. Being asked as to their goods and chattels, the jurors say that they had none, so far as could be ascertained. Being asked who first found the corpse, they say it was Thomas, son of John le Marshall, who raised the cry so that the country came. The corpse was viewed on which the wound appeared. [Order] to the Sheriff to attach the said William, Thomas and John as soon as they be found in their bailiwick.
Afterwards the William de la March was captured by Adam de Salisbury, the Sheriff and committed to Newgate [prison]. William has a surcoat which is confiscated [because of] his flight, worth two shillings, for which Adam de Sal¬isbury the Sheriff [is responsible].
Four neighbors attached, namely: John Assheby, by Thomas Starling and Walter de Stanes. Walter de Bedefunte, by Walter de Northampton and John le Barber. William de Pomfreit, by William de Chalke and Roger Swetyng. Adam le Fuitz Robert, by Eustace le Hattere and Thomas de Borham. - ON THE DEATH OF THOMAS le POUNTAGER
On Saturday the Feast of St. Laurence [10 Aug.] the year [A.D. 1325], it happened that a certain Thomas, son of John le Pountager, lay drowned in the water of the Thames before the wharf of Richard Dorking in the parish of St. Martin, in the Ward of Vintry. On hearing this, the Coroner and Sheriffs proceeded there, and having summoned good men of that Ward and of the three nearest Wards… they diligently inquired how it happened. The jurors say that when on the preceding Friday, at dusk, Thomas had placed himself on the quay of Edward le Blount to bathe in the Thames, he was accidentally drowned, no one being present; that he remained in the water until Saturday, when at the third hour John Fleg a boatman discovered his corpse and raised the cry so that the country came. The corpse viewed on which no wound or bruise appeared.
The above John Fleg, the finder of the body, attached by Robert de Lenne and Robert de Taunton. Four neighbors attached [their names are listed in the report].
- ON THE DEATH OF JOHANNA, DAUGHTER OF BERNARD OF IRLAUNDE
Friday after the Feast of St. Dunstan [19 May] the year [A.D. 1322], it happened that Johanna daughter of Bernard de Irlaunde, a child one month old, lay dead of a death other than her rightful death, in a shop held by the said Bernard… in the parish of St. Michael, in the Ward of Queenhithe. On hearing this, the Coroner and Sheriffs proceeded there, and having summoned good men of that Ward and of the three nearest Wards…, they diligently inquired how it happened. The jurors say that when on the preceding Thursday, before the hour of Vespers, Johanna was lying in her cradle alone, the shop door being open there entered a certain sow which mortally bit the right side of the head of Johanna. At length there came Margaret, … Johanna's mother, and raised the cry and snatched up Johanna and kept her alive until midnight Friday when she died of the said bite and of no other felony. Being asked who were present, [the jurors] say, "No one except Margaret," nor do they suspect [any other cause] except the bite . the corpse of the said Johanna viewed on which no [other?] hurt appeared [sic]. The sow appraised by the jurors at 13 d. for which Richard Costantin, the Sheriff; [is responsible].
The above Margaret who found the body attached by John de Bedford and Andrew de Gloucester. Four neighbors attached [their names are listed in the report]. - ON THE DEATH OF MATILDA CAMBERSTER AND MARGERY HER DAUGHTER
Friday after the Feast of St. Ambrose [4 April, 1337], information given to the Coroner and Sheriffs, that Matilda la Cambester and Margery her daughter aged one mouth, lay dead of a death other than their rightful death in a shop in the rent of the Prior of Tortyton in the parish of St Swythin in the Ward of Walbrok. Thereupon they proceeded there, and having summoned good men of that Ward, they diligently inquired how it happened. The jurors… say that on the preced¬ing Thursday, after the hour of curfew when Matilda and Margery lay asleep in the shop a lighted candle which Matilda had negligently left on the wall, fell down among some straw and set fire to the shop so that the said Matilda and Margery were suffocated and burnt before the neighbors knew anything about it. The bodies viewed, &c.
Four neighbors attached [their names are listed in the report]. - ON THE DEATH OF LUCY FAUKES
On Monday before the Feast of St. Michael [29 Sept., 1322], it happened that a certain Lucy Faukes lay dead of a death other than her rightful death in a certain shop which Richard le Sherman held of John Priour, senior, in the parish of St. Olave in the Ward of Alegate. On hearing this, the Coroner and Sheriffs proceeded thither, and having summoned good men of that Ward and of the three nearest Wards, … they diligently inquired how it happened. The jurors say that on Sunday before the Feast of St. Matthew [2 Sept., 1322], about the hour of curfew, Lucy came to the shop in order to pass the night there with… Richard le Sherman and Cristina his wife, as she oftentimes was accustomed, and because Lucy was clad in good clothes, Richard and Cristina began to quarrel with her in order to obtain a reason for killing her for her clothes. At length Robert took up a staff called ÔBalstaf;' and with the force and assistance of Cristina, struck her on the top of the head, and mortally broke and crushed the whole of her head, so that she died at once. Richard and Cristina stripped Lucy of her clothes, and immediately fled, but where they went or who received them, [the jurors] do not know. Being asked who were present when this happened, they say, "No one except the said Richard, Cristina and Lucy." Nor do they suspect anyone of the death except Richard and Cristina. Being asked about the goods and chattels of Richard and Cristina, the jurors say that they had nothing except what they took away with them. Being asked who found the dead Lucy's dead body, they say a certain Giles le Portor who raised the cry so that the country came. Order to the Sheriffs to attach the said Richard and Cristina when found in their bailiwick.
… Four neighbors attached [their names are listed in the report].
Please answer the following questions:
(1) What do these documents tell us about the living conditions for various classes of people in London in this period?
(2) What do the homicide cases suggest about criminality in this era?
Sample Solution