Raising a Hue and Cry

Even in the modern world with a trained police force it can be hard to catch criminals Centuries ago life was so much more vulnerable in many ways and there was a greater sense of community and with much fewer in the way of state assets.

In medieval England, the best arrangement was the so-called hue and cry, a combination of a 999 call, police sirens, and a collective hunt for the criminal. In a nutshell, the hue and cry was a peacekeeping mechanism that obliged victims or finders to summon neighbours to chase and hopefully catch the criminals.

The roots of local responsibility for crime prevention seem to lie in Anglo-Saxon customs before the Norman invasion of 1066. In time the burden and responsibility fell squarely on the local community through the tithing and the “Hue and Cry”.

Every male over the age of 12 had to belong to a group of nine others, called a tithing. These ten men were responsible for the behaviour of each other. If one of them broke the law, the others had to bring that person before the court. The sanction, to make the system work, was that if they did not, they would all be held responsible for the crime.

This usually meant paying the victim of a crime for their loss. The community was also responsible for doing their best to chase after a criminal. Anyone wronged could call upon everyone else in a community to chase a criminal simply by calling on them to do so by “raising the hue and cry” – calling out for help. Everyone nearby was then supposed to join in the chase. If they did not make an effort then the whole community was held responsible for the crime and would face punishment themselves.

What is understood as a Hue and Cry was introduced as a legal obligation on all subjects by King Edward I in the 1285 Statute of Winchester and it was a system both men and women equally took part in.

At times, this kind of vigilante policing could also go wrong. In 1303, for example, a student from Durham heard a hue and cry by his companions as some Welsh students were about to start a fight on School Street. The inquest reports that “when the said William heard this, as he was in his lodging, he came forth with a staff to help his companions; and the said malefactors at once beat him, whereof he died”.

Medieval jurors were at times cautious to draw a line between joining in the perpetration of a crime and obliging to the hue and cry. Sometimes being involved in a hue and cry could be doubly helpful as it could help rule out suspects.

In Oxford, for example two men were found not to be involved in the killing of a servant of Sir John de Kytegreins because they “came in response to the hue and cry that had been raised, for purposes of protecting the king’s peace”.

All those joining in the hue and cry were authorised in arresting the person pursued, even if it turned out that he was innocent. If the criminal bore apparent evidence of guilt on his person and if he resisted capture, he could be killed on the spot; if he submitted to capture, his fate was decided by due process.

The various statutes relating to hue and cry were finally repealed in the early part of the 19th century though in many ways they inspired the more sophisticated procedures that continue today.

Raising a Hue and Cry is still a saying in British English today and broadly means to make a loud noise or protest that grabs peoples attention about something.

For another post relating to pre-police crime detection then see https://stephenliddell.co.uk/2017/11/27/the-rotherhithe-watch-house-cafe/

If you’d like to know about old English idioms then check out my book Straight from the Horse’s Mouth.