The restraint was carried out under the direction of a Tythingman chosen from among them, with the responsibility of bringing to justice any man of their number who was summoned. [10] The first Tythings were entirely voluntary associations, groups founded by mutual agreement of their free members. The aspect of the system that initially prevented it from being made universally mandatory was that only landowners could be forced to pay fines that could be imposed on the group: the sheriff stopped twice a year and saw Frankpledge once a year. Frankpledge was a joint guarantee system common in England in the early Middle Ages and the High Middle Ages. The essential feature was the mandatory division of responsibilities among those associated with tithing. This unit under a leader known as the principal pledge or tithe was then responsible for the production of any man of this tithe suspected of a crime. If the man did not show up, the whole group could be fined. [1] The servants of the crown were not, as now, bound to each other in an open vow. The Frankpledge system began to deteriorate in the 14th century. [18] The expansion of centralized royal administration on the one hand,[19] and the increasing appropriation of Frankpledge`s view by private landowners,[20] both served to undermine the local system; and increased agricultural differentiation and mobility – a process exacerbated by the effects of the Black Death. [21] Nevertheless, the system survived in places until the 15th century. 22] Although he was increasingly replaced by local gendarmes—the former principal vows—who operated under the orders of justices of the peace, their supervision represented the remnants of Frankpledge`s view.

Frankpledge, a system in medieval England under which all but the greatest men and their families were bound by mutual responsibility to keep the peace. Frankpledge dates back to the laws of King Canute II.dem Great of Denmark and England (died 1035), who stated that every man, serf or free man, must be part of a hundred units of local government that can provide a monetary guarantee for his good conduct. In the 13th century, however, it was the unfree and landless men who were so connected. While the land of a free landowner was sufficient, the non-free had to be in Frankpledge, usually a union of 12, or in tithe, an association of 10 households. Frankpledge was most common in the area under the Danelaw, from Essex to Yorkshire, while tithes were found in southern and south-west England. In the north Yorkshire region, the system does not appear to have been applied. The system began to deteriorate in the 14th century and was replaced in the 15th century by local gendarmes who worked under the orders of justices of the peace. The Frankpledge`s semi-annual view, led by the sheriff, included the payment of a penny of tithe to the sheriff,[16] as well as other ways to earn, including fines: for this reason, exemption from touring or private adoption from Frankpledge`s perspective,[16] by lords or boroughs were valuable privileges; whereas, conversely, the Magna Carta of 1217 explicitly sought to restrict what the sheriff could legitimately demand of Frankpledge. [17] The Borh was a freezing system in which individuals—a family member, a master for servants, a master for parents—became responsible for bringing others to justice for crimes. [8] At the same time, late Anglo-Saxon society increasingly assumed responsibility for legal matters in groups of ten. The group was called teothung or tything. a « thing (assembly) of ten men ».

[9] The landless person was worthless as a member of a Frith-Borh, because the law had little influence on a man who had no land to lose and no permanent residence. Thus, the peasant was legally compelled to submit to an owner who was held responsible for the conduct of all his « men »; His estate became, so to speak, a private Frith-Borh, composed of relatives instead of the free men of the public Frith-Borhs.