0:00:29 > 0:00:33The first thing any legal system needs is a set of laws.
0:00:33 > 0:00:36And I've come to Rochester in Kent
0:00:36 > 0:00:39to see the earliest-known English law code.
0:00:41 > 0:00:43Established in the fifth century,
0:00:43 > 0:00:47Kent is thought to have been the first Anglo-Saxon kingdom.
0:00:47 > 0:00:50Rochester's imposing cathedral and castle
0:00:50 > 0:00:53testify to the region's historical importance.
0:00:53 > 0:00:56But Rochester boasts yet another treasure.
0:00:56 > 0:01:00Which, for a lawyer such as me, is even more significant.
0:01:08 > 0:01:13Stored in the council archives is a book of enormous importance.
0:01:13 > 0:01:17Not just to the law, but to the entire English-speaking world.
0:01:18 > 0:01:20This is the Textus Roffensis,
0:01:20 > 0:01:22or the Rochester Book.
0:01:22 > 0:01:25And it contains a number of documents,
0:01:25 > 0:01:28but the most significant is the first.
0:01:28 > 0:01:30And it's this.
0:01:31 > 0:01:34A few pages...
0:01:34 > 0:01:36of a text...
0:01:36 > 0:01:39dating back to 600.
0:01:39 > 0:01:45It's not only the first writing
0:01:45 > 0:01:48in English that we have,
0:01:48 > 0:01:51so it's the beginning of English literature,
0:01:51 > 0:01:54it's the first law code that we have.
0:01:59 > 0:02:04It's a very simple list of fines or compensation
0:02:04 > 0:02:08for accidents, injuries, wrongs.
0:02:09 > 0:02:16Gif feax fang geword. L. sceatta tobote.
0:02:17 > 0:02:20If hair seizure takes place,
0:02:20 > 0:02:2450 sceatta as compensation.
0:02:24 > 0:02:28Gif eare of weord aslagen...
0:02:28 > 0:02:31If an ear becomes struck off,
0:02:31 > 0:02:35one is to compensate with 12 shillings.
0:02:35 > 0:02:39If one strikes off a thumb, 20 shillings.
0:02:39 > 0:02:43And this is perhaps the most sensitive one.
0:02:43 > 0:02:46If someone disables a genital member,
0:02:46 > 0:02:51one is to buy him off with three person payments.
0:02:52 > 0:02:57A person payment was the monetary value given to a man's life.
0:02:57 > 0:03:00In this instance, the victim was compensated
0:03:00 > 0:03:03for the children he would no longer be able to father.
0:03:05 > 0:03:09We tend to think that the compensation culture
0:03:09 > 0:03:12is something imported from America.
0:03:12 > 0:03:16But here it is at the very start of English law.
0:03:25 > 0:03:28If laws are the essential basis of any legal system,
0:03:28 > 0:03:32the next step is setting up institutions to apply them.
0:03:32 > 0:03:35Courts.
0:03:35 > 0:03:39Anglo-Saxon society was ordered into areas known as hundreds -
0:03:39 > 0:03:41so-called, according to one theory,
0:03:41 > 0:03:45because they may have contained roughly 100 homesteads.
0:03:45 > 0:03:49These had their own assemblies to deal with minor cases.
0:03:49 > 0:03:51More serious disputes and crimes
0:03:51 > 0:03:53were referred up to shire courts,
0:03:53 > 0:03:57forerunners of our county courts.
0:03:58 > 0:04:03This mound goes by the characterful name of Scutchamer Knob.
0:04:03 > 0:04:06Sometimes corrupted to Scotsman's knob.
0:04:06 > 0:04:11Anyway, in Anglo-Saxon times, the shire court of Berkshire met here
0:04:11 > 0:04:13and you couldn't have missed it.
0:04:18 > 0:04:21Sited prominently on the ridgeway,
0:04:21 > 0:04:25assemblies here would have been visible for miles around.
0:04:29 > 0:04:31Sitting in judgement in the shire court
0:04:31 > 0:04:34might have been a senior cleric, such as a bishop,
0:04:34 > 0:04:37especially when a dispute involved the Church.
0:04:37 > 0:04:40Or otherwise, a representative of the King.
0:04:40 > 0:04:45A figure known as a shire-reeve, or sheriff.
0:04:46 > 0:04:52And trials would be resolved using a remarkably simple method of proof.
0:04:52 > 0:04:54Early trials were based on oaths.
0:04:54 > 0:04:57To prove your innocence, all you had to do
0:04:57 > 0:04:59was to swear an oath that you weren't guilty
0:04:59 > 0:05:03and to get people to come here to swear to your honesty.
0:05:03 > 0:05:07If you could rustle up the prescribed level of support,
0:05:07 > 0:05:08you were off the hook.
0:05:10 > 0:05:12Just how many oath helpers you needed
0:05:12 > 0:05:18depended on your social status and the nature of the alleged offence.
0:05:18 > 0:05:22One 10th century text stipulates 36 people were required
0:05:22 > 0:05:25in a case of arson or murder.
0:05:25 > 0:05:31To us, it all sounds very odd and open to abuse.
0:05:31 > 0:05:36But this was a society suffused with religious faith.
0:05:36 > 0:05:40To lie on oath was to risk damnation.
0:05:40 > 0:05:44And your friends might be less than keen to support you
0:05:44 > 0:05:46if they considered you a liability
0:05:46 > 0:05:50who could compromise their good standing in the community.
0:05:50 > 0:05:53So, yes, it was simple,
0:05:53 > 0:05:59but that needn't mean it was ineffective or unjust.
0:05:59 > 0:06:03The Anglo-Saxons didn't distinguish between what we now regard
0:06:03 > 0:06:06as civil and criminal law.
0:06:06 > 0:06:10So oaths could be used to resolve property disputes, as well.
0:06:10 > 0:06:14Of course, if two opposing parties swore contradictory oaths,
0:06:14 > 0:06:18it meant at least one of them was committing perjury.
0:06:18 > 0:06:20Lying on oath.
0:06:20 > 0:06:23Would this system work now?
0:06:23 > 0:06:25With their souls at stake,
0:06:25 > 0:06:28would Anglo-Saxons have been more reluctant to lie
0:06:28 > 0:06:33than we might be today when we swear on oath to tell the truth?
0:06:40 > 0:06:42Some of the best physical evidence
0:06:42 > 0:06:45for how justice operated in later Anglo-Saxon England
0:06:45 > 0:06:49has been found on the outskirts of Winchester.
0:06:49 > 0:06:52The archaeologist Andrew Reynolds
0:06:52 > 0:06:55took me to Harestock, close to the old Roman road.
0:06:55 > 0:06:58What was found here that makes it so special?
0:06:58 > 0:07:00Some archaeological excavation
0:07:00 > 0:07:03uncovered the remains of 16 individuals
0:07:03 > 0:07:05buried in a series of graves.
0:07:05 > 0:07:07And the modern name Harestock
0:07:07 > 0:07:09is derived from the old English Shaffod Stockan,
0:07:09 > 0:07:12which means, literally means heads on stakes.
0:07:12 > 0:07:15It basically tells us that it's an Anglo-Saxon
0:07:15 > 0:07:18judicial execution cemetery.
0:07:21 > 0:07:23So you can imagine here in the Anglo-Saxon period,
0:07:23 > 0:07:27a traveller moving along the, the road behind us,
0:07:27 > 0:07:31we're at a particularly prominent place in the landscape here.
0:07:31 > 0:07:34You can see we're on rising ground. So a very prominent place.
0:07:34 > 0:07:37A series of poles with heads on, on sticks.
0:07:37 > 0:07:39Very dramatic sight for travellers.
0:07:39 > 0:07:44As a lawyer, I put great emphasis on the quality of the evidence.
0:07:44 > 0:07:47The remains recovered from the Harestock site
0:07:47 > 0:07:50are now kept in storage by Winchester museums.
0:07:50 > 0:07:54Andrew showed me one example of a typical victim.
0:07:54 > 0:07:57Now, this is astonishingly well preserved
0:07:57 > 0:08:00for somebody who has been in the ground a thousand years.
0:08:00 > 0:08:04And in laymen's eyes, there's nothing here to indicate
0:08:04 > 0:08:07anything other than the sad death of a young person.
0:08:07 > 0:08:09Well, it was a very different picture
0:08:09 > 0:08:11when the body was actually taken out of the ground.
0:08:11 > 0:08:15Because rather than the hands being to either side, as they are here,
0:08:15 > 0:08:19when the body was excavated, they were found crossed over each other,
0:08:19 > 0:08:21underneath or behind the back.
0:08:21 > 0:08:24And that's a clear indication, really, that you've got foul play
0:08:24 > 0:08:28or something that's not quite usual going on there.
0:08:28 > 0:08:34Um...but the greatest indication that this is not a normal burial
0:08:34 > 0:08:35is the fact that the head,
0:08:35 > 0:08:38which you can see here in the correct anatomical position,
0:08:38 > 0:08:42was actually found by the side of the leg.
0:08:44 > 0:08:47This was a clear case of execution by beheading.
0:08:47 > 0:08:52A punishment not just for committing murder, but theft, too.
0:08:58 > 0:09:01So, how was decapitation done?
0:09:01 > 0:09:03Well, almost certainly with a sword,
0:09:03 > 0:09:06probably with the hands tied behind the back.
0:09:06 > 0:09:09If you take a look at this bone here,
0:09:09 > 0:09:12where the blade of the sword has caught the underside of the jaw
0:09:12 > 0:09:14when the person's executed.
0:09:14 > 0:09:18- And that would be one blow, would it?- That would be one blow.
0:09:18 > 0:09:20In the absence of a police force,
0:09:20 > 0:09:22the deterrent for crime
0:09:22 > 0:09:26was the threat of mutilation or death.
0:09:26 > 0:09:31Take notice of these heads on stakes...and beware!
0:09:40 > 0:09:44Like much of Europe, the later Anglo-Saxons
0:09:44 > 0:09:46developed a way of determining proof
0:09:46 > 0:09:51which used the power of the elements of water and of fire.
0:09:51 > 0:09:56And which invited God himself to intervene in the trial.
0:09:58 > 0:10:00This was the Judicium Dei.
0:10:00 > 0:10:02The judgement of God.
0:10:02 > 0:10:05Trial by ordeal.
0:10:05 > 0:10:07If you were suspected of a crime,
0:10:07 > 0:10:10you were subjected to a ritualised,
0:10:10 > 0:10:13but painful and dangerous test.
0:10:13 > 0:10:16God would come to the aid of the innocent,
0:10:16 > 0:10:20but for the guilty, there would be no such comfort.
0:10:21 > 0:10:25The ordeal was neither torture nor punishment.
0:10:25 > 0:10:27It was a mode of proof.
0:10:27 > 0:10:30Only if you failed were you punished.
0:10:33 > 0:10:36Because of their religious element,
0:10:36 > 0:10:39ordeals were supervised by the clergy.
0:10:39 > 0:10:43Two main kinds of ordeal were used in England.
0:10:43 > 0:10:49The first involved carrying a piece of red-hot iron in your bare hand.
0:10:49 > 0:10:52Before the ordeal, the priest called upon God
0:10:52 > 0:10:54to bless the hot iron
0:10:54 > 0:10:57so that it would be a pleasing coldness
0:10:57 > 0:11:01to those who carry it with justice and fortitude,
0:11:01 > 0:11:04but a burning fire to the wicked.
0:11:06 > 0:11:11The accused had to walk a few paces holding the iron.
0:11:11 > 0:11:13The hand was then bandaged.
0:11:13 > 0:11:17And after three days, was inspected to see if it were healing.
0:11:19 > 0:11:23If the wound were clean, that was proof of your innocence.
0:11:23 > 0:11:27But if it had started to fester, you were deemed guilty.
0:11:32 > 0:11:35The second kind of ordeal was more dangerous.
0:11:35 > 0:11:40You were bound and lowered into a body of sanctified water.
0:11:40 > 0:11:45And your guilt was determined by whether you floated or sank.
0:11:45 > 0:11:49Now, you might assume that sinking meant you were guilty.
0:11:49 > 0:11:52After all, you were much more likely to drown.
0:11:52 > 0:11:57But the belief was that the water was so pure as to repel sin.
0:11:57 > 0:12:01Sinking indicated innocence.
0:12:01 > 0:12:04Floating was proof of guilt.
0:12:06 > 0:12:09Ordeals like these may seem barbaric to us,
0:12:09 > 0:12:13but they were carried out in Christian Europe for centuries.
0:12:13 > 0:12:17I asked legal historian John Hudson what factors determined
0:12:17 > 0:12:20whether you were sent for ordeal in the first place.
0:12:20 > 0:12:24They seem to have been often proposed as a way of settling cases
0:12:24 > 0:12:26that you couldn't settle in other ways.
0:12:26 > 0:12:29For example, if you don't have any factual proof,
0:12:29 > 0:12:31no marks on the person who's accused,
0:12:31 > 0:12:34no evidence that they're holding onto stolen goods,
0:12:34 > 0:12:36no blood on their hands,
0:12:36 > 0:12:39then there's a chance that no-one will know who committed the offence.
0:12:39 > 0:12:43And then the likelihood is that they would have to go to trial by ordeal.
0:12:43 > 0:12:46The number of people who actually undergo the ordeal,
0:12:46 > 0:12:49having been threatened with it, may well be much smaller.
0:12:49 > 0:12:52It seems to have been a way of trying to scare people
0:12:52 > 0:12:56either into confessing, or very often, into settling.
0:12:57 > 0:13:00When the Normans invaded in 1066,
0:13:00 > 0:13:04they brought with them their own preferred method of ordeal.
0:13:09 > 0:13:14In trial by combat, God would grant victory to the righteous.
0:13:14 > 0:13:20This was seen by the wealthy as a more dignified means
0:13:20 > 0:13:25of resolving civil disputes than hot iron or water.
0:13:25 > 0:13:28It could also be used in criminal cases.
0:13:28 > 0:13:30Good!
0:13:30 > 0:13:32What was the purpose of the combat?
0:13:32 > 0:13:36Was it to kill your opponent, or just bludgeon them into submission?
0:13:36 > 0:13:38Well, for a civil case,
0:13:38 > 0:13:42which would be about large amounts of money or about land,
0:13:42 > 0:13:45you would probably try to bludgeon them into submission.
0:13:45 > 0:13:49And one opponent is on the ground and calls out, "I yield."
0:13:52 > 0:13:54My Lord!
0:13:54 > 0:13:59Criminal cases were an altogether less dignified affair,
0:13:59 > 0:14:01often involving the kind of riff-raff
0:14:01 > 0:14:04who couldn't afford a decent blade.
0:14:04 > 0:14:07This wooden stake would have been a far more likely weapon
0:14:07 > 0:14:10in trial by combat in a criminal case.
0:14:10 > 0:14:12And, um...in so many words,
0:14:12 > 0:14:15you try to hit your opponent where it hurts.
0:14:15 > 0:14:18Head, shoulder, arms,
0:14:18 > 0:14:21knees, feet, um...and all the male places.
0:14:21 > 0:14:22Would you like to try it?
0:14:22 > 0:14:25- So I would go like that, or that, or boink.- Yes.
0:14:25 > 0:14:26And what about that?
0:14:26 > 0:14:28Oh, yes. I think so.
0:14:28 > 0:14:29There is no reason to believe
0:14:29 > 0:14:32that this wouldn't have been sharpened to a very nasty point
0:14:32 > 0:14:34and it may even have had nails in it.
0:14:36 > 0:14:39Although it was a trial by combat,
0:14:39 > 0:14:43it was often hard to distinguish between trial and punishment.
0:14:44 > 0:14:48When you beat your opponent to the ground, you might as well kill them.
0:14:48 > 0:14:51Because afterwards, they'll be taken away and get executed, anyway.
0:14:51 > 0:14:54Either for the crime they were initially accused of,
0:14:54 > 0:14:58or if it's the other party that gets beaten to the ground,
0:14:58 > 0:15:01for having committed major acts of perjury.
0:15:06 > 0:15:09What might happen if you lost and survived
0:15:09 > 0:15:14is told in one of the few accounts of an English judicial duel.
0:15:14 > 0:15:17A certain Thomas of Eldersfield near Gloucester
0:15:17 > 0:15:21was defeated in combat by a man he'd been accused of wounding.
0:15:21 > 0:15:24Now, rather than having him hanged,
0:15:24 > 0:15:26the judges, being merciful,
0:15:26 > 0:15:31ordered that he merely be castrated and blinded.
0:15:31 > 0:15:37The victor and his family set about this task with a degree of relish,
0:15:37 > 0:15:42throwing his eyes on the ground and using his testicles as footballs -
0:15:42 > 0:15:45the local lads kicking them playfully at the girls.
0:15:59 > 0:16:01In the reign of Henry II,
0:16:01 > 0:16:06one important group remained beyond the grasp of the common law.
0:16:06 > 0:16:08The clergy.
0:16:09 > 0:16:12Henry's attempts to deal with that problem
0:16:12 > 0:16:14would come to define his reign
0:16:14 > 0:16:17and reach a head here in Canterbury.
0:16:19 > 0:16:22The clergy enjoyed their own legal system.
0:16:22 > 0:16:24Canon law.
0:16:25 > 0:16:26If you were in holy orders,
0:16:26 > 0:16:29you were subject solely to the control of the Church.
0:16:30 > 0:16:33The Crown couldn't touch you.
0:16:34 > 0:16:36No matter how serious the crime,
0:16:36 > 0:16:41a cleric would merely be ordered by his bishop to repent of his sins,
0:16:41 > 0:16:45whereas a layman might be mutilated or hanged.
0:16:45 > 0:16:51That is unless they claimed Benefit of Clergy.
0:16:51 > 0:16:53Benefit of Clergy provided
0:16:53 > 0:16:56perhaps the biggest loophole in English legal history.
0:16:56 > 0:17:00On the flimsiest of grounds, you could claim to be a cleric,
0:17:00 > 0:17:03thus removing your sanctified soul
0:17:03 > 0:17:06from the grasp of the secular authorities.
0:17:06 > 0:17:09Eventually, the benefit could be claimed
0:17:09 > 0:17:13merely by reciting the first verse of Psalm 51.
0:17:13 > 0:17:19Have mercy upon me, O, God, according to thy loving kindness.
0:17:19 > 0:17:23According unto the multitude of thy tender mercies,
0:17:23 > 0:17:26blot out my transgressions.
0:17:26 > 0:17:31Royal justice was unable to prosecute any member of the clergy
0:17:31 > 0:17:33who had committed a crime.
0:17:33 > 0:17:37This was perhaps the most serious challenge to Henry's authority.
0:17:37 > 0:17:41So when Henry appointed his close friend Thomas Becket
0:17:41 > 0:17:43as Archbishop of Canterbury,
0:17:43 > 0:17:48he did so in the hope that under Becket's leadership,
0:17:48 > 0:17:51the Church would conform and co-operate,
0:17:51 > 0:17:54and those of its clergy who committed serious offences
0:17:54 > 0:17:57would be subjected to royal justice.
0:17:57 > 0:18:02But Becket had his own agenda to maintain church authority.
0:18:02 > 0:18:06And he fell foul of the King, leading Henry to proclaim,
0:18:06 > 0:18:11"Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
0:18:12 > 0:18:14What happened next
0:18:14 > 0:18:18is one of the most famous stories of Medieval England.
0:18:18 > 0:18:20CHORAL SINGING
0:18:23 > 0:18:27On the night of 29th December, 1170,
0:18:27 > 0:18:33the story goes Becket was at evening prayer here in Canterbury Cathedral
0:18:33 > 0:18:37when he was confronted by four knights loyal to the King.
0:18:42 > 0:18:46They struck him down with repeated blows from their swords.
0:18:46 > 0:18:51And they were so ferocious that they sliced off the crown off his head
0:18:51 > 0:18:53so that, in the words of an eyewitness,
0:18:53 > 0:18:56"the blood white with the brain
0:18:56 > 0:18:59"and the brain no less red from the blood,
0:18:59 > 0:19:02"dyed the floor of the cathedral."
0:19:08 > 0:19:13It's unlikely Henry actually ordered Becket's murder.
0:19:13 > 0:19:17His archbishop's death undermined all that the King wanted
0:19:17 > 0:19:22as public opinion rallied around the Church.
0:19:22 > 0:19:24Becket became a martyr.
0:19:24 > 0:19:28And a repentant Henry felt he could no longer touch the issue
0:19:28 > 0:19:31of priests who had broken the law.
0:19:31 > 0:19:33It would take centuries before the clergy
0:19:33 > 0:19:36were subject to the secular law.
0:19:36 > 0:19:38And as for Benefit of Clergy,
0:19:38 > 0:19:42that would not be abolished until 1827.
0:19:52 > 0:19:57The reign of Henry II witnessed a profound change
0:19:57 > 0:20:00in the development of English justice.
0:20:00 > 0:20:04The King himself introduced a unified legal system
0:20:04 > 0:20:06for the whole country.
0:20:06 > 0:20:09A common law.
0:20:09 > 0:20:12He also presided over the development of the jury.
0:20:14 > 0:20:18Early in his reign, Henry had already established
0:20:18 > 0:20:21a system of roving royal justices,
0:20:21 > 0:20:23what we would now refer to as judges,
0:20:23 > 0:20:28who travelled the country ensuring this common law was being enforced
0:20:28 > 0:20:31by each and every shire court,
0:20:31 > 0:20:34and claiming all the fines that were due to the King.
0:20:36 > 0:20:39Now, Henry went one step further,
0:20:39 > 0:20:41decreeing that members of the public
0:20:41 > 0:20:46should play an essential role in this legal process.
0:20:46 > 0:20:49These so-called juries of presentment
0:20:49 > 0:20:52soon became common practice.
0:20:55 > 0:20:58Juries of presentment didn't consider evidence
0:20:58 > 0:21:00and determine guilt or innocence.
0:21:00 > 0:21:04Instead, they were representatives of local communities
0:21:04 > 0:21:06who had to report under oath
0:21:06 > 0:21:10all the crimes committed in their area
0:21:10 > 0:21:13and to name those they deemed responsible.
0:21:14 > 0:21:20The gradual emergence of this new system received an unexpected boost
0:21:20 > 0:21:24when suddenly, in 1215, Pope Innocent III
0:21:24 > 0:21:29banned the clergy from presiding over trials by ordeal,
0:21:29 > 0:21:33effectively withdrawing the Church from the legal process.
0:21:34 > 0:21:37Now it was no longer the Almighty,
0:21:37 > 0:21:39but a rather less exalted tribunal
0:21:39 > 0:21:42that would determine the outcome.
0:21:42 > 0:21:44The judge would ask the members of the jury
0:21:44 > 0:21:48when declaring whether the accused were guilty or not
0:21:48 > 0:21:51to give a truthful answer.
0:21:51 > 0:21:56In the Anglo-French of the time, "aver dit".
0:21:56 > 0:21:57Our verdict.
0:21:58 > 0:22:04The first known English jury trial took place in 1220.
0:22:04 > 0:22:07A woman called Alice, condemned for murder,
0:22:07 > 0:22:10accused five others of criminality.
0:22:10 > 0:22:14They chose the judgement of their neighbours -
0:22:14 > 0:22:16in the phrase of the time,
0:22:16 > 0:22:22putting themselves for good and ill upon a verdict.
0:22:22 > 0:22:25These neighbours decided that one man was lawful,
0:22:25 > 0:22:26but that four were thieves.
0:22:26 > 0:22:28And they were sent to the noose.
0:22:30 > 0:22:31By the late 13th century,
0:22:31 > 0:22:35such juries had become a familiar part of English law.
0:22:35 > 0:22:38Unlike modern ones, they didn't weigh evidence,
0:22:38 > 0:22:43but came to a decision based on their own knowledge or belief.
0:22:43 > 0:22:46For ordinary people to have such power
0:22:46 > 0:22:49in a society that was, in other respects,
0:22:49 > 0:22:54full of inequalities, was revolutionary.
0:22:54 > 0:22:56Your peers had been given an authority
0:22:56 > 0:23:00that had previously been the preserve of God.
0:23:00 > 0:23:03Your guilt was now decided in public
0:23:03 > 0:23:06by members of the public,
0:23:06 > 0:23:09independent of the state.
0:23:09 > 0:23:10The jury.
0:23:10 > 0:23:18The institution that most defines English justice truly begins here.
0:23:27 > 0:23:32In the mid 17th century, in the years leading up to the Civil War,
0:23:32 > 0:23:34England had a two-tier legal system.
0:23:34 > 0:23:38The common law, and a system under royal authority...
0:23:40 > 0:23:43..which allowed torture, and enabled the King to do as he saw fit.
0:23:45 > 0:23:50Its court was held in the now notorious Star Chamber.
0:23:50 > 0:23:54Near where I'm standing was the site of the court of Star Chamber.
0:23:54 > 0:23:58Today, a byword for injustice and oppression.
0:23:58 > 0:24:01But in its inception and throughout most of its history,
0:24:01 > 0:24:04it represented precisely the opposite.
0:24:07 > 0:24:12Star Chamber came to the forefront during the reign of Henry VII
0:24:12 > 0:24:14after the Wars of the Roses,
0:24:14 > 0:24:17a time of great turmoil in Tudor England
0:24:17 > 0:24:21when nobles ran their territories like Mafia bosses
0:24:21 > 0:24:27and disputes could end in what we would now call contract killings.
0:24:27 > 0:24:30The nobility seemed beyond the law.
0:24:30 > 0:24:35They could intimidate juries and bribe judges.
0:24:35 > 0:24:40So the Crown developed a court outside the normal common law.
0:24:40 > 0:24:44It had powers that could break this English Mafia.
0:24:44 > 0:24:48No amount of money could buy this court.
0:24:48 > 0:24:52And soon, the previously untouchable nobles
0:24:52 > 0:24:54found themselves in the dock.
0:24:55 > 0:24:58It may look like an upmarket country pub,
0:24:58 > 0:25:03but this was where England's most powerful men clashed.
0:25:03 > 0:25:08Justice was dispensed under this ceiling of gold stars,
0:25:08 > 0:25:12from which the court gets its name Star Chamber.
0:25:13 > 0:25:17It had no jury that could be bribed or intimidated by the mighty.
0:25:17 > 0:25:23Instead, errant aristocrats were interrogated and judged
0:25:23 > 0:25:26by members of the government itself.
0:25:28 > 0:25:33The power of Star Chamber grew considerably under the Stuarts.
0:25:34 > 0:25:36But by the time of Charles I,
0:25:36 > 0:25:38it was widely recognised
0:25:38 > 0:25:40as a symbol of misuse
0:25:40 > 0:25:43and of the abuse of power
0:25:43 > 0:25:46by the King and his circle.
0:25:47 > 0:25:50In 1629, Charles dismissed Parliament
0:25:50 > 0:25:54and took control of the country
0:25:54 > 0:25:58in what is now known as the Eleven Years' tyranny.
0:25:58 > 0:26:03During this period, Charles used Star Chamber to raise taxes
0:26:03 > 0:26:06by fining the wealthy on petty charges,
0:26:06 > 0:26:11but also to clamp down on religious descent and political opposition.
0:26:15 > 0:26:18Under this ceiling studded with stars,
0:26:18 > 0:26:21disfiguring and degrading punishments
0:26:21 > 0:26:25were imposed by cruelly imaginative judges,
0:26:25 > 0:26:28the creatures of the King.
0:26:28 > 0:26:32The victims of such treatment were those bold or rash enough
0:26:32 > 0:26:37openly to oppose Charles' arbitrary rule.
0:26:37 > 0:26:41Some had their noses slit.
0:26:41 > 0:26:44Others, their ears cut off.
0:26:44 > 0:26:47Public displays of royal displeasure.
0:26:49 > 0:26:54Those reluctant to incriminate themselves or others
0:26:54 > 0:27:02might be persuaded to change their minds by a trip to the Tower.
0:27:06 > 0:27:09It was home to the rack.
0:27:11 > 0:27:14Bridget Clifford from the Royal Armouries
0:27:14 > 0:27:17revealed the Tower's dark secret.
0:27:17 > 0:27:21For the poor unfortunates upon which this was used,
0:27:21 > 0:27:23what would have been the procedure?
0:27:23 > 0:27:25You would be set upon it,
0:27:25 > 0:27:29the ropes would be applied to your ankles and to your wrists,
0:27:29 > 0:27:34and then it would be slowly tightened by rotating the drum.
0:27:40 > 0:27:45One master of the rack was said to have boasted of racking a prisoner,
0:27:45 > 0:27:50"One good foot longer than even God made him."
0:27:51 > 0:27:54What allegations or offences would this have been applied to?
0:27:54 > 0:27:56Mainly treason.
0:27:56 > 0:27:59Now, what constitutes that threat
0:27:59 > 0:28:01can be a physical threat.
0:28:01 > 0:28:04It can also be the fact that your religion
0:28:04 > 0:28:07is seen to be standing against that
0:28:07 > 0:28:09that the country approves of at the time.
0:28:15 > 0:28:19For over a decade, Parliament's doors were locked.
0:28:19 > 0:28:22The King ruled alone and supreme.
0:28:22 > 0:28:27These dark days remained until a costly religious war with the Scots
0:28:27 > 0:28:30drained the royal finances.
0:28:30 > 0:28:36Finally, in 1640, Charles was forced to recall Parliament to get money.
0:28:37 > 0:28:40Now back in the game, the MPs aimed to destroy
0:28:40 > 0:28:44the hated institution of Charles' rule.
0:28:44 > 0:28:47Torture warrants were made illegal.
0:28:47 > 0:28:51No attempt to revive them has ever been made since.
0:28:51 > 0:28:54And the victims of Star Chamber,
0:28:54 > 0:28:58those who had lost money, liberty or ears,
0:28:58 > 0:29:00called on Parliament to rein in
0:29:00 > 0:29:05this other symbol of royal absolutism.
0:29:05 > 0:29:08But they didn't just rein it in.
0:29:08 > 0:29:10On July 5th, 1641,
0:29:10 > 0:29:15Charles was forced to sign Star Chamber out of existence.
0:29:22 > 0:29:25I'm here in the Parliamentary Archives
0:29:25 > 0:29:28to see a document devised and drafted
0:29:28 > 0:29:30largely by Edward Coke,
0:29:30 > 0:29:34and whose significance to our constitutional history
0:29:34 > 0:29:38is second only perhaps to that of Magna Carta itself.
0:29:38 > 0:29:42It is the Petition of Right.
0:29:44 > 0:29:48Edward Coke, the driving force behind the Petition of Right,
0:29:48 > 0:29:53was perhaps the most influential judicial figure of his time.
0:29:54 > 0:29:58During the reigns of James I and Charles I,
0:29:58 > 0:30:02Coke had bravely fought for the supremacy of the common law
0:30:02 > 0:30:05over the power of the monarchy.
0:30:05 > 0:30:10So here it is, the Petition of Right itself.
0:30:10 > 0:30:13Now, it may not look a great deal.
0:30:13 > 0:30:18It's a piece of vellum with a lot of rather nicely-written words on them.
0:30:18 > 0:30:20But, of course, its significance
0:30:20 > 0:30:24is far more than just the document we have before us.
0:30:25 > 0:30:30It's only one page, but it helped change the course of history.
0:30:32 > 0:30:35It's hardly a humble petition, but that's how it's phrased.
0:30:35 > 0:30:41"Humbly do the Commons point out to the King the law of the land.
0:30:41 > 0:30:43"What had always been.
0:30:43 > 0:30:47"The civil liberties, the liberties of the subject
0:30:47 > 0:30:49"enshrined by Parliamentary Statute."
0:30:49 > 0:30:52And then they go onto the meat of the complaint.
0:30:52 > 0:30:55That, "Despite all these enactments in the past,
0:30:55 > 0:30:58"things have gone horribly wrong.
0:30:58 > 0:31:00"And in particular,
0:31:00 > 0:31:03"diverse of His Majesty's subjects
0:31:03 > 0:31:06"had of late been imprisoned.
0:31:06 > 0:31:10"And when they were brought before His Majesty's courts
0:31:10 > 0:31:14"to challenge the conditions of their detention,
0:31:14 > 0:31:17"they were denied justice
0:31:17 > 0:31:20"and they were sent back to prison without cause."
0:31:21 > 0:31:26Edward Coke was clear this would never happen again, insisting,
0:31:26 > 0:31:28"That no man hereafter
0:31:28 > 0:31:33"be compelled to pay taxes without Parliamentary authority
0:31:33 > 0:31:36"or be imprisoned without cause."
0:31:38 > 0:31:40Any individual who was imprisoned
0:31:40 > 0:31:44could demand that their jailor legally justified their actions.
0:31:44 > 0:31:48This idea central to our liberty
0:31:48 > 0:31:51is known as habeas corpus.
0:31:51 > 0:31:53It was a principle whose power
0:31:53 > 0:31:56would grow immensely over subsequent decades.
0:31:57 > 0:32:00Coke's ideals were even incorporated
0:32:00 > 0:32:04into the Constitution of the United States of America.
0:32:04 > 0:32:09A descendant of the Petition of Right itself.
0:32:09 > 0:32:14This is a document that is not just significant in 17th century England.
0:32:14 > 0:32:17This is a document that is one of the foundation documents
0:32:17 > 0:32:19of civil liberties.
0:32:28 > 0:32:30In the space of a thousand years,
0:32:30 > 0:32:34the law had evolved from being a rough code to settle local disputes
0:32:34 > 0:32:36in Anglo-Saxon England
0:32:36 > 0:32:39into an independent institution
0:32:39 > 0:32:45so powerful that it was capable of killing the King of England.
0:32:49 > 0:32:55Charles I and the monarchy had been swept aside.
0:32:55 > 0:32:58But in 1649, there was a fear
0:32:58 > 0:33:03that England had simply swapped one tyrannical regime for another.
0:33:04 > 0:33:08In an attempt to impose order in the chaos unleashed by the Civil War,
0:33:08 > 0:33:13Oliver Cromwell himself was stamping down on dissenters
0:33:13 > 0:33:16with the religious groups, like Ranters,
0:33:16 > 0:33:19or political movements, like the Levellers.
0:33:20 > 0:33:24Radical groups could no longer look to Parliament
0:33:24 > 0:33:27to uphold the law in the cause of liberty.
0:33:27 > 0:33:31Individuals would have to deploy the law themselves.
0:33:32 > 0:33:38And none more so than the leading Leveller, John Lilburne.
0:33:39 > 0:33:42He believed that the time had now come
0:33:42 > 0:33:45for all the men of England to claim their ancient liberties.
0:33:45 > 0:33:48He exploited the power of the printing press
0:33:48 > 0:33:52to secretly publish and distribute his radical views,
0:33:52 > 0:33:56which quickly came to infuriate the authorities.
0:33:56 > 0:34:00They'd repeatedly lock him up to shut him up,
0:34:00 > 0:34:04but Lilburne had a crucial legal weapon on his side.
0:34:04 > 0:34:06Habeas corpus.
0:34:06 > 0:34:11And he thought that this piece of paper could be his key to freedom.
0:34:13 > 0:34:15Here's how habeas corpus works in practice.
0:34:15 > 0:34:20A document known as a writ is delivered to the jailor, saying,
0:34:20 > 0:34:22"We direct you to have the body..."
0:34:22 > 0:34:26- habeas corpus in Latin - of, say, Harry Potter,
0:34:26 > 0:34:30"..before this court, along with the reason for detention."
0:34:30 > 0:34:34If the jailor cannot satisfy the court that the reason is lawful,
0:34:34 > 0:34:37then Harry Potter walks free.
0:34:37 > 0:34:40Habeas corpus is a remedy
0:34:40 > 0:34:44against arbitrary arrest and unlawful imprisonment.
0:34:45 > 0:34:50Lilburne employed habeas corpus more often than anyone in history.
0:34:50 > 0:34:54The results were more symbolic than actual.
0:34:54 > 0:34:56He was able to highlight his predicament
0:34:56 > 0:34:59and embarrass the authorities.
0:35:00 > 0:35:03Yet he'd still be sent back to jail.
0:35:03 > 0:35:08If anything showed how the law was being challenged, it was this.
0:35:08 > 0:35:11In March 1649, Lilburne's latest pamphlet
0:35:11 > 0:35:15attacking Cromwell's regime got him arrested.
0:35:15 > 0:35:20While he was being held, Parliament created a new law.
0:35:20 > 0:35:22It made it treasonable
0:35:22 > 0:35:26to call the government tyrannical or unlawful in print.
0:35:29 > 0:35:32A mutiny in Oxfordshire brought things to a head.
0:35:32 > 0:35:37Lilburne's pamphlets were blamed for goading the troops to revolt.
0:35:37 > 0:35:41Cromwell put Lilburne on trial for publishing seditious pamphlets
0:35:41 > 0:35:45under this convenient new treason law.
0:35:45 > 0:35:48Cromwell then left for Ireland,
0:35:48 > 0:35:52safe in the knowledge that Lilburne was all but a dead man.
0:35:52 > 0:35:55But Lilburne was no fool.
0:35:55 > 0:35:57And, equipped with an astounding knowledge
0:35:57 > 0:35:59of current legal practices,
0:35:59 > 0:36:03he took delight in defending himself.
0:36:03 > 0:36:07Throughout the trial, he skilfully undermined
0:36:07 > 0:36:09the legitimacy of the court -
0:36:09 > 0:36:13refusing to call the presiding judge Lord President,
0:36:13 > 0:36:17but also by requesting numerous comfort breaks
0:36:17 > 0:36:22due to his prolonged period of standing in the dock.
0:36:22 > 0:36:27Astonishingly, the court allowed him to have a chamber pot,
0:36:27 > 0:36:31which Lilburne duly used in front of the jury.
0:36:32 > 0:36:36Lilburne had mounted an impassioned defence
0:36:36 > 0:36:39few barristers could better today.
0:36:39 > 0:36:42How would the jury react?
0:36:42 > 0:36:47Finally, the foreman announced him not guilty.
0:36:47 > 0:36:48His life was saved
0:36:48 > 0:36:52and the cheers from his supporters lasted over half an hour.
0:36:55 > 0:36:59At his trial, Lilburne won important rights.
0:36:59 > 0:37:02The right to a vigorous self-defence,
0:37:02 > 0:37:05to challenge seeming unfairness in court procedures
0:37:05 > 0:37:07and to take comfort breaks.
0:37:09 > 0:37:12Lilburne had woven the law into a safety net
0:37:12 > 0:37:16that ensured Parliament couldn't silence him.
0:37:16 > 0:37:21Now, just as Charles I had used Star Chamber,
0:37:21 > 0:37:25Cromwell needed to find a way of dealing with Lilburne
0:37:25 > 0:37:30outside the normal parameters of the legal system.
0:37:30 > 0:37:32The next time Lilburne stepped out of line,
0:37:32 > 0:37:36Cromwell would have something up his sleeve.
0:37:37 > 0:37:40Before he could issue a writ of habeas corpus,
0:37:40 > 0:37:43Lilburne was shipped across the English Channel,
0:37:43 > 0:37:46beyond the reach of the law.
0:37:46 > 0:37:49On this offshore military outpost,
0:37:49 > 0:37:51the normal protections of English law
0:37:51 > 0:37:54were almost impossible to employ.
0:37:54 > 0:37:58Jersey was Oliver Cromwell's Guantanamo Bay.
0:38:02 > 0:38:05Lilburne's extraordinary rendition
0:38:05 > 0:38:08took him from the relative comfort of the Tower
0:38:08 > 0:38:11to here, Mont Orgueil Castle.
0:38:13 > 0:38:16Cromwell wasn't prepared to take any more chances
0:38:16 > 0:38:17with a man like John Lilburne
0:38:17 > 0:38:19and dispatched him here to Jersey.
0:38:19 > 0:38:23Isolated on an island - out of sight and out of mind -
0:38:23 > 0:38:27he was beyond the effective reach of habeas corpus.
0:38:27 > 0:38:29..A major harbour...
0:38:29 > 0:38:31'Castle curator Doug Ford
0:38:31 > 0:38:34'gave me a much warmer welcome than Lilburne received.'
0:38:37 > 0:38:39So this is Lilburne's cell?
0:38:39 > 0:38:42This is Lilburne's cell, yes.
0:38:42 > 0:38:45His bedchamber from the 1640s through to the 1660s.
0:38:45 > 0:38:48This is where important prisoners were lodged.
0:38:48 > 0:38:50Now, in the summer, it's still quite chilly
0:38:50 > 0:38:54and I notice the walls look and feel damp.
0:38:54 > 0:38:57Yes. We're very exposed up here at the top of the cliff.
0:38:59 > 0:39:01Lilburne was offered his freedom
0:39:01 > 0:39:05if he would just stop agitating against the Government,
0:39:05 > 0:39:09but being Lilburne, he would not back down.
0:39:09 > 0:39:12A year's imprisonment in the conditions of this castle, however,
0:39:12 > 0:39:14if it couldn't destroy his spirit,
0:39:14 > 0:39:17left him a largely broken man.
0:39:22 > 0:39:26In 1657, only two years after he was released,
0:39:26 > 0:39:30John Lilburne died, aged 42.
0:39:31 > 0:39:37But habeas corpus lives on to this day.
0:39:46 > 0:39:51With the restoration of the English Monarchy in 1660,
0:39:51 > 0:39:55Charles II resumed the Stuarts' favourite family pastime -
0:39:55 > 0:39:58religious persecution.
0:40:02 > 0:40:07A new law targeted religions outside the Church of England.
0:40:07 > 0:40:11It severely restricted all non-conformist worship.
0:40:11 > 0:40:13The Conventicle Act
0:40:13 > 0:40:17banned any assembly of more than five non-Anglicans.
0:40:18 > 0:40:21Thousands were prosecuted under the Act -
0:40:21 > 0:40:24Catholics, Presbyterians, Quakers -
0:40:24 > 0:40:29and those found guilty were subject to imprisonment,
0:40:29 > 0:40:30or even transportation.
0:40:32 > 0:40:36But that didn't stop two gutsy Quakers defying the law.
0:40:36 > 0:40:40William Mead and William Penn had not just broken the rule of five,
0:40:40 > 0:40:44they'd been addressing a crowd of hundreds when they were arrested.
0:40:45 > 0:40:48But although they were guilty by the letter of the law,
0:40:48 > 0:40:53many Englishmen felt the law was morally wrong.
0:40:53 > 0:40:57And, luckily for the defendants, four of them were on the jury.
0:40:57 > 0:41:02These four jurymen, led by a merchant called Edward Bushel,
0:41:02 > 0:41:06bravely declined to find the defendants
0:41:06 > 0:41:08guilty of a criminal offence.
0:41:08 > 0:41:13The furious judge called Bushel impudent
0:41:13 > 0:41:16and threatened to "put his mark on him",
0:41:16 > 0:41:17but Bushel held firm
0:41:17 > 0:41:20and soon the remainder of the jury followed suit.
0:41:20 > 0:41:23Their verdict was not guilty.
0:41:25 > 0:41:29When the jury failed to bring in the right verdict,
0:41:29 > 0:41:32the judge shut them up without meat or drink,
0:41:32 > 0:41:34fire or tobacco,
0:41:34 > 0:41:36to reconsider their decision...
0:41:38 > 0:41:39..or to starve.
0:41:42 > 0:41:46The conditions in Newgate Gaol were so bad
0:41:46 > 0:41:49that one in ten prisoners died there.
0:41:50 > 0:41:54But habeas corpus was waiting to strike again.
0:41:55 > 0:42:00Edward Bushel managed to get a writ heard before Chief Justice Vaughan.
0:42:00 > 0:42:04The case had become infamous
0:42:04 > 0:42:08and Westminster Hall was hanging on Vaughan's decision.
0:42:11 > 0:42:15'What happened next would have a lasting legal impact.'
0:42:17 > 0:42:20'I asked the current Lord Chief Justice,
0:42:20 > 0:42:23'the highest judge in the land, about Vaughan's ruling.'
0:42:26 > 0:42:27And he declared
0:42:27 > 0:42:31that juries should return verdicts in accordance with their conscience
0:42:31 > 0:42:34and that no juror should ever be punished
0:42:34 > 0:42:35for the verdict that he reached.
0:42:35 > 0:42:38How significant was the case of Edward Bushel?
0:42:38 > 0:42:40It was absolutely crucial.
0:42:40 > 0:42:44This was a remarkable moment in our history,
0:42:44 > 0:42:47that Chief Justice Vaughan made it absolutely plain
0:42:47 > 0:42:50that that was the end of any possibility of a juryman
0:42:50 > 0:42:52being punished for his verdict.
0:42:52 > 0:42:55And it never happened again and never has.
0:42:56 > 0:42:58The jury were finally freed,
0:42:58 > 0:43:01but only after spending several weeks
0:43:01 > 0:43:04in England's most notorious gaol.
0:43:07 > 0:43:13Today, juries are free to give their verdict without repercussions,
0:43:13 > 0:43:16no matter how perverse it appears to a judge.
0:43:21 > 0:43:23FOGHORN BLARES
0:43:23 > 0:43:271771, the Thames docks.
0:43:27 > 0:43:29A legal document is raced down to a ship
0:43:29 > 0:43:33that is about to set sail with its cargo for Jamaica.
0:43:33 > 0:43:37The document required the ship's captain
0:43:37 > 0:43:40to produce his cargo before the Chief Justice.
0:43:41 > 0:43:45The document was a writ of habeas corpus,
0:43:45 > 0:43:50the cargo a slave called James Somerset.
0:43:54 > 0:43:56By putting Somerset in chains,
0:43:56 > 0:44:01the ship's captain had become his gaoler, answerable to the law.
0:44:02 > 0:44:05Habeas corpus gives a prisoner the power
0:44:05 > 0:44:10to compel his gaoler to justify his detention.
0:44:10 > 0:44:13A realisation swept across the slave trade.
0:44:13 > 0:44:19The very legality of slavery itself was going to be tested in court.
0:44:22 > 0:44:27So who was James Somerset and how had he come to be here?
0:44:27 > 0:44:33I asked Arthur Torrington, who has studied the history of slavery.
0:44:33 > 0:44:35James Somerset was kidnapped and taken to Virginia.
0:44:35 > 0:44:40He was bought by a gentleman by the name of Charles Stewart.
0:44:40 > 0:44:43A boy of nine, enslaved,
0:44:43 > 0:44:47was just a pageboy, just a helper,
0:44:47 > 0:44:52but eventually about ten or so years after,
0:44:52 > 0:44:55this Mr Stewart brought him to London
0:44:55 > 0:44:58and that's when all the things began to change.
0:44:59 > 0:45:02James Somerset escaped.
0:45:02 > 0:45:05Frightened and in a strange land,
0:45:05 > 0:45:09he sought refuge in London's 15,000-strong black community.
0:45:10 > 0:45:14And when the leading slavery abolitionist Granville Sharp
0:45:14 > 0:45:16heard of Somerset's plight,
0:45:16 > 0:45:20he knew he had found the perfect case
0:45:20 > 0:45:23with which to test the very legality of slavery.
0:45:24 > 0:45:26In the case of Granville Sharp,
0:45:26 > 0:45:28he felt that these are human
0:45:28 > 0:45:30and therefore these are human beings
0:45:30 > 0:45:32that cannot be and should not be
0:45:32 > 0:45:33treated in that particular way,
0:45:33 > 0:45:35in which they are enslaved,
0:45:35 > 0:45:39they are not given human rights and so on.
0:45:39 > 0:45:42So Sharp was determined to break that cycle if he could.
0:45:44 > 0:45:48This was an argument about whether a slave had rights on British soil.
0:45:49 > 0:45:53Did the law regard slaves as property?
0:45:53 > 0:45:56If so, a writ of habeas corpus would be meaningless.
0:45:56 > 0:46:00Or would the law see slaves as human beings?
0:46:00 > 0:46:03If so, habeas corpus could challenge
0:46:03 > 0:46:05their transportation out of the country.
0:46:05 > 0:46:08Ultimately, the judgement in this case
0:46:08 > 0:46:12would reverberate across the entire slave trade
0:46:12 > 0:46:14on both sides of the Atlantic.
0:46:16 > 0:46:21The case went to the very top, to Lord Mansfield.
0:46:21 > 0:46:25The slave traders could have expected Mansfield to be their ally.
0:46:25 > 0:46:29Of Scottish noble birth, he embodied the establishment.
0:46:29 > 0:46:33From his imposing home, Kenwood House,
0:46:33 > 0:46:36to his rulings embracing free trade,
0:46:36 > 0:46:40he had been prominent in both Houses of Parliament
0:46:40 > 0:46:44and was the highest judge in the land, Lord Chief Justice.
0:46:48 > 0:46:52As the case ground on in Westminster Hall,
0:46:52 > 0:46:55Lord Mansfield is said to have proclaimed,
0:46:55 > 0:47:00"Let justice be done though the heavens fall."
0:47:00 > 0:47:02Both sides were well represented.
0:47:02 > 0:47:05The abolitionist barristers claimed that there was no law
0:47:05 > 0:47:09legalising slavery in this country and so it must be illegal.
0:47:11 > 0:47:14The slavers' counsel countered by saying
0:47:14 > 0:47:16that as contracts for the sale of slaves
0:47:16 > 0:47:18were recognised in English law,
0:47:18 > 0:47:22that must validate slavery in England.
0:47:22 > 0:47:27The court adjourned for Lord Mansfield to prepare his judgement.
0:47:27 > 0:47:30Mansfield brooded over the case.
0:47:30 > 0:47:32What did the law say?
0:47:32 > 0:47:35What did his heart say?
0:47:35 > 0:47:39What impact would a ruling on the James Somerset case have?
0:47:39 > 0:47:43Granville Sharp, the great abolitionist,
0:47:43 > 0:47:45was anxiously awaiting the ruling.
0:47:46 > 0:47:49But, having clashed with Mansfield in the past,
0:47:49 > 0:47:53he didn't come to court to avoid antagonising the judge.
0:47:53 > 0:47:57So he didn't hear the judgement delivered,
0:47:57 > 0:47:59staying instead at his home.
0:48:01 > 0:48:04The result was sprinted through the streets to him.
0:48:09 > 0:48:11In this street,
0:48:11 > 0:48:13somewhere near that spot,
0:48:13 > 0:48:16Granville Sharp answered his door.
0:48:16 > 0:48:20There in front of him, smiling, exultant,
0:48:20 > 0:48:23stood James Somerset - a free man.
0:48:26 > 0:48:29In his judgement, Lord Mansfield said,
0:48:29 > 0:48:34"That the state of slavery is of such a nature so odious
0:48:34 > 0:48:37"that the English Common Law could never accept it."
0:48:37 > 0:48:41Now, whether he meant by this to ignite a spark
0:48:41 > 0:48:44that would end slavery is unclear,
0:48:44 > 0:48:50but that is how his judgement was interpreted both here and abroad.
0:48:50 > 0:48:53One single writ of habeas corpus
0:48:53 > 0:48:57had released not just one man from bondage
0:48:57 > 0:49:00but was to mark the start of freedom
0:49:00 > 0:49:04for all the 15,000 slaves then in England.
0:49:17 > 0:49:18At the start of the 18th century,
0:49:18 > 0:49:21our liberties and freedoms had been established.
0:49:21 > 0:49:25The courts, by comparison, were still in the Dark Ages.
0:49:25 > 0:49:27Land yourself in the dock
0:49:27 > 0:49:30and you found yourself in a medieval nightmare.
0:49:31 > 0:49:33With no police force
0:49:33 > 0:49:35and no forensic science service,
0:49:35 > 0:49:39the only means of deterring crimes was through exemplary punishment -
0:49:39 > 0:49:44whipping, transportation and hanging.
0:49:44 > 0:49:48And an already severe system was about to get even bloodier.
0:49:51 > 0:49:53This is Waltham in Hampshire.
0:49:53 > 0:49:57In 1723 it was a place of terror.
0:49:58 > 0:50:01A gang rampaged through these forests
0:50:01 > 0:50:04poaching, robbing and murdering,
0:50:04 > 0:50:07their faces blacked up in disguise.
0:50:08 > 0:50:12It was feared these Waltham Blacks, as they were known,
0:50:12 > 0:50:14would spread their violence across England.
0:50:18 > 0:50:22As a knee-jerk reaction the Waltham Black Act was rushed into law.
0:50:22 > 0:50:27Suddenly, all manner of offences were punishable by death.
0:50:29 > 0:50:31Just being caught in a park with a blacked-up face
0:50:31 > 0:50:33could get you hanged,
0:50:33 > 0:50:36along with damaging trees and wrecking fishponds.
0:50:36 > 0:50:42It was the harshest legislation the country had ever seen.
0:50:42 > 0:50:44Thus began a terrible trend
0:50:44 > 0:50:47that meant that by the end of the century,
0:50:47 > 0:50:51more than 200 offences were punishable by death.
0:50:51 > 0:50:52Deterrence was all.
0:50:52 > 0:50:56As Judge Buller told a felon he was sentencing,
0:50:56 > 0:51:00"You are to be hanged not for stealing horses
0:51:00 > 0:51:03"but that horses may not be stolen."
0:51:03 > 0:51:08This system was appropriately named The Bloody Code.
0:51:13 > 0:51:16In this era, people felt the innocent
0:51:16 > 0:51:19should be able to argue their own cases.
0:51:19 > 0:51:24Many an accused, when compelled to defend themselves
0:51:24 > 0:51:28in this alien environment with its unfamiliar procedures
0:51:28 > 0:51:33and terminology, would have been terrified into incoherence
0:51:33 > 0:51:38when their lives were hanging in the balance.
0:51:38 > 0:51:44If the defendant needed assistance, the judge was expected to offer it.
0:51:44 > 0:51:47With a judge your only defender
0:51:47 > 0:51:51and The Bloody Code sanctioning hanging for over 200 crimes,
0:51:51 > 0:51:55you might have expected the hangman to be the busiest tradesman in town.
0:51:57 > 0:52:02Thankfully, something came between you and the noose - the jury.
0:52:03 > 0:52:07Juries were considerably less punitive 200 years ago
0:52:07 > 0:52:09than perhaps you might think.
0:52:09 > 0:52:11When faced with The Bloody Code,
0:52:11 > 0:52:16which imposed the death penalty for innumerable petty offences,
0:52:16 > 0:52:19juries were inclined to go against their oath
0:52:19 > 0:52:22of bringing in a true verdict,
0:52:22 > 0:52:25and either to find people not guilty
0:52:25 > 0:52:30or more often to reduce the amount of property stolen
0:52:30 > 0:52:33so that it was no longer a capital offence.
0:52:33 > 0:52:38This was known as pious perjury and let me give you an example.
0:52:39 > 0:52:42Here's just one case from the Old Bailey records
0:52:42 > 0:52:47and it relates to a Mary Behn of the Parish of St Andrew Holborn.
0:52:47 > 0:52:51Now, she was indicted for the theft of clothing
0:52:51 > 0:52:53worth over 50 shillings.
0:52:53 > 0:52:55That was a capital offence.
0:52:55 > 0:53:02"She made a frivolous defence upon which the jury found her guilty
0:53:02 > 0:53:06"to the value of 4 shillings and 10 pence."
0:53:06 > 0:53:10Thus rendering her no longer liable to execution
0:53:10 > 0:53:13and so she was merely branded.
0:53:20 > 0:53:24During the 18th century, the whole system of law and punishment
0:53:24 > 0:53:28that had become to be known as The Bloody Code wasn't working.
0:53:28 > 0:53:34It was savage and disordered and needed a major overhaul.
0:53:34 > 0:53:37And only the Government could do this.
0:53:37 > 0:53:39There was a politician with the courage,
0:53:39 > 0:53:41the obsessive eye for detail
0:53:41 > 0:53:43and the power of personality
0:53:43 > 0:53:48to take on this project - Robert Peel.
0:53:48 > 0:53:50When Robert Peel became Home Secretary,
0:53:50 > 0:53:54there were over 100 statutes dealing with forgery alone.
0:53:54 > 0:53:57He ruthlessly attacked this legislative mess.
0:54:03 > 0:54:07Out of this bonfire of legislation,
0:54:07 > 0:54:11Peel pulled a piece of legislative magic.
0:54:11 > 0:54:18120 statutes were transformed into one, just six pages long.
0:54:18 > 0:54:20With consummate skill,
0:54:20 > 0:54:24Robert Peel did more to reform the criminal justice system
0:54:24 > 0:54:28than almost any other Home Secretary.
0:54:29 > 0:54:31Over the course of eight years,
0:54:31 > 0:54:36Peel consolidated three-quarters of all offences into a few key Acts.
0:54:36 > 0:54:40The Waltham Black Act, with its dozens of hanging crimes,
0:54:40 > 0:54:42all but disappeared.
0:54:42 > 0:54:44The death penalty was severely restricted.
0:54:48 > 0:54:51Peel had reformed the law,
0:54:51 > 0:54:54now he searched for the means to enforce it.
0:54:54 > 0:54:58The Bloody Code's unjust punishments had failed to reduce crime.
0:54:58 > 0:55:01Could there be a better deterrent?
0:55:06 > 0:55:10In August 2011 rioting swept England
0:55:10 > 0:55:13and for a time the mob ruled.
0:55:13 > 0:55:16Eventually, the police controlled the situation
0:55:16 > 0:55:20but imagine the destruction if, as in Robert Peel's day,
0:55:20 > 0:55:23the police didn't exist.
0:55:23 > 0:55:27Instead of deploying police and employing water cannon,
0:55:27 > 0:55:31Governments relied on The Riot Act.
0:55:32 > 0:55:35The Act held that where 12 or more people
0:55:35 > 0:55:38gathered together in riotous assembly
0:55:38 > 0:55:41and rejected the reading of The Riot Act
0:55:41 > 0:55:44and failed to disperse within an hour,
0:55:44 > 0:55:47then force could be used against them.
0:55:47 > 0:55:48Those remaining on the scene
0:55:48 > 0:55:52would be subject to the most severe penalty of all - death.
0:55:56 > 0:55:59Riots were frequent, and to restore order,
0:55:59 > 0:56:02the only option was to send in the Army.
0:56:05 > 0:56:10Robert Peel's new idea was to create a police force.
0:56:10 > 0:56:14Uncontroversial to us but at the time
0:56:14 > 0:56:18a radical and suspect concept.
0:56:18 > 0:56:21I think he was quite clearly looking for the right answer.
0:56:21 > 0:56:24'I asked former Home Secretary Douglas Hurd
0:56:24 > 0:56:26'about the reaction to Peel's innovation.'
0:56:26 > 0:56:31Why where people opposed to the creation of a police force?
0:56:31 > 0:56:35Because one of the themes which runs through English history
0:56:35 > 0:56:38in the 18th and 19th century is the fear...
0:56:38 > 0:56:41is the fear of a standing army.
0:56:41 > 0:56:46A standing army was thought of as something that the Stuarts...
0:56:46 > 0:56:52rather believed in, cos it was a sort of re-enforcement of royal power.
0:56:52 > 0:56:53And people thought...
0:56:53 > 0:56:56and this was very strong when Peel first produced
0:56:56 > 0:56:58the plan for a Metropolitan Police,
0:56:58 > 0:57:00that this was just the Government
0:57:00 > 0:57:04trying to grab hold of the lives of the people.
0:57:06 > 0:57:09Peel had long sought to replace the existing
0:57:09 > 0:57:12and ineffective system of night-watchmen
0:57:12 > 0:57:14and parish constables,
0:57:14 > 0:57:17but he faced an uphill struggle
0:57:17 > 0:57:19in the face of the argument
0:57:19 > 0:57:23that a professional police force would be a danger to liberty.
0:57:23 > 0:57:27Could Robert Peel convince the population
0:57:27 > 0:57:30that having a police force did not mean England
0:57:30 > 0:57:32would become a police state?
0:57:33 > 0:57:37In 1829 he did this by persuading the public
0:57:37 > 0:57:41that the police would not just control people,
0:57:41 > 0:57:43they would primarily control crime.
0:57:44 > 0:57:47"I want to teach people," wrote Peel,
0:57:47 > 0:57:51"that liberty does not consist in having your house robbed
0:57:51 > 0:57:54"by organised gangs of thieves,
0:57:54 > 0:57:56"or leaving the principal streets of London
0:57:56 > 0:58:01"in the nightly possession of drunken women or vagabonds."
0:58:03 > 0:58:05Crucially, for English Criminal Law,
0:58:05 > 0:58:08the creation of a professional force
0:58:08 > 0:58:11meant that the police, rather than harsh penalties,
0:58:11 > 0:58:13became the main deterrent of crime.
0:58:15 > 0:58:21The long arm of the law would prove far more effective than the noose.
0:58:49 > 0:58:51Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd