Reflections on the Murder Fine

Abstract

Japanese writers generally point out that the murder fine was introduced by William the Conqueror as a means of inflicting reprisals upon, and thus protecting his Norman followers against the attacks of native Saxons. For example, Professor Ikuo SATO emphasizes this aspect of the murder fine in order to support his view that England was subjugated by the duchy of Normandy after the Conquest. However, it seems to me that this approach, which attributes the existence of the murder fine only to the racial confrontation in the period immediately following the Conquest, is insufficient. Even though the original reason for the murder fine was undoubtedly to suppress the opposition of a subjugated people, one must also examine the legal foundations which enabled the Conqueror to adopt such a measure in the first place, and why it continued to exist until the middle of the fourteenth century, although racial antagonisms had already ended. In explaining this, one must take into account that fundamental changes had occurred in English criminal law in the century following the Conquest. Among these changes were the spread of the king's peace and the emergence of the public prosecution of crime. Also established was the idea that homicide in general was no longer emendable through payment to a slain man's relatives, but constituted a plea of the crown. The historical significance of the murder fine should be considered in light of these changes.In this essay, I utilize the works of F. Liebermann, F.W. Maitland, H.E. Yntema, F.C. Hamil, N.D. Hurnard, C.A.F. Meekings and others to clarify these points. I first analyze the legal foundations of the murder fine as revealed in the Norman period law-books, in particular the Leges Henrici Primi. I also argue that transformations in the administration of the murder fine occurred for fiscal reasons.