THE MID SUSSEX TIMES - TUESDAY MARCH 19 1889

An incident Cuckfield in the year 1218.

To the editor of the Mid Sussex Times- 

Sir, the Selden Society has lately published the Reports of a series of the earliest recorded “Pleas of the Crown”, i.e. prosecutions of a criminal nature for the purpose of illustrating the history of English law. Amongst these I noticed one which may be of some interest to your readers, since it is a Cuckfield case which occurred in what an Irishman would call ‘very former times’, that is to say, just 671 years ago. And it happens to possess the additional interest of referring to various customs which have long since disappeared, but which are familiar to everyone who has even an elementary acquaintance with English history, so that they require no explanation.

One of these is the benefit of clergy, whereby anyone belonging to the ecclesiastical order was exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The second is the presentment of a criminal charge by a jury to the judges, the jury thus taking the initiative in a prosecution.

The third is the trial by wager of battle.

We of these days are not altogether in a position for ridiculing the last mentioned institution as an absurd method of deciding the merits of a controversy.

For under our present system of allowing a preposterous multiplicity of appeals, the longer purse, and not the more righteous cause has a distinct advantage in any legal conflict.

The Leighs who are mentioned in the case are doubtless the family who have given their name to more than one spot in Cuckfield, notably for example to “Little Leighs”, corrupted into “Little Ease”, a grim sort of title, by which every conceivable suggestion of discomfort seems to have been compendiously packed into three syllables. It will be remembered that a cell of torment in the tower, one of the numerous numberless horrors which made up what are called “the good old times” was known as the “Little Ease”.

I am not aware that the portentous name of “Hoppeoverhumbr” still survives amongst us. If not, one may regard it as likely had to have been dropped when the world grew busier.

For it must then have been found too long to write or to pronounce, if, indeed, to pronounce it at all was a practicable enterprise.

It reminds one of the Russian general in Sothey’s “March to Moscow”, who had a name which nobody could tackle, so that he had to be referred to by a circumlocution 

After them came 

A terrible man, with a terrible name; 

A name which we all know by sight very well, 

But which no one can speak, and no one can spell. 

The original record of the matter is, according to the practice of those times, in Latin.

The following is a translation. 

"Pleas before the justices of the bench in the reign of Henry, the son of John.

Pleas of Hilary and Easter terms in the 4th Year of Henry 3rd (A.D. 1220),

Hugh Hopoverhumbr appeals Thomas of Dean for that on St. Giles’ day between the hours of prime and terce, (6 to 9 am), in the second year of the reign, as he, with William of Leigh his cousin, was in the Park of the Earl of Warrene at Cuckfield in charge of the Park, the said Thomas came with his force, and a multitude of armed men with bows and arrows, and assaulted them, and aimed and arrow at the said William and hit him in the leg, so that he died of the wound within nine days; and that he did this wickedly and in felony and in the King's peace he offers to prove against him by his body as the Court shall consider, as one who is present and saw this. He adds that suit was made according to the law of the land, and that the hue was raised, and that 12 jurors indicted Thomas of that death before the justices at their last Eyre in those parts, and that the said William, after the wound, and while yet alive, declared the Thomas hit him as aforesaid, and charged him with his death.

And Thomas comes and defends all of it as a clerk who is ordained. And upon this comes Robert of Dean his brother, and produces letters close of the Bishop of Chichester in which is contained that Thomas has sufficiently proved before him by witnesses that he was promoted in due season by Suffrid Bishop of Chichester to the order of acolyte, and therefore he demands him as a Klerk, in order that he, the bishop, may do justice respecting him to everyone who shall complain in the ecclesiastical court.

Thomas is committed to Ralph Bishop of Chichester that he may have him to write, for that he is a Klerk. And note that the Archbishop of Canterbury who had taken Thomas into his custody is quit thereof.”

I am sir

Your obedient servant

T. W. Erle

Athenaem Club

March 12th 1889