The history of criminal law has claimed an increasing share of the attention of legal and social historians in recent years. Undeterred by Professor Milsom's verdict that in the area of English criminal law, ‘nothing worthwhile was created,’ historians have plunged into the study of doctrine and practice in the common law courts. The attractions of the source material are undoubtedly great. The law is relatively straightforward, at least compared to land litigation. The cases are interesting and sometimes sensational. The subject matter promises rewards in understanding the relationship between social change and legal development. And the study may even be immediately relevant, shedding light on current law enforcement problems.

Historians' impressions of the position of agricultural servants and wage labourers within the medieval English rural society and economy remain as imprecise as the picture which most contemporary documents provide. Research to date on medieval agricultural labourers has concentrated upon estate workers within the seigneurial economy, primarily because manorial accounts provide fairly detailed information about famuli or estate labourers employed by particular manors, their terms of employment, and the remuneration they received. But the role of servants and labourers employed on tenant holdings by medieval villagers, and their importance for non-agricultural production within rural communities, are still extremely uncertain. They appeared fleetingly if at all in manorial documentation, which seldom had reason to be concerned with them as such, while another source which historians have used to approach the problem, nominative polltax returns furnishing household or occupational information, poses serious difficulties of interpretation.

Exhortations to maintain a reasonable balance between crimes and punishments, condemnations of excessive penal severity and pleas for a reduction in the number of crimes for which death was the penalty do not originate in the eighteenth century. Reform of the criminal law had been an unattained goal of both Puritans and Levellers during the Commonwealth period. Reform efforts ironically paralleled the immense increase of new statutory felonies in eighteenth century England and throughout the western world a simultaneity of attention was paid to reformulating the nature and purpose of punishment. A vigorous reformist sentiment can be observed among enlightened men in Europe and America regarding the necessity of an amelioration in the criminal codes of their nations and central to much of this was the principle of proportionality, that every penalty be proportioned to the offense. In the American colonies, the initiation of rebellion presented an unparalleled opportunity for change.

Until assuming the violent form most strikingly exemplified in France by the explosions of 1789 and 1848, the century-long movement of resistance and emancipation of the European peasantry mainly occurred in the legal domain. The focus of opposition was towards the attempt to impose a normative system which sought to undermine the working rules of peasant communities. It was carried through, for example, by protesting against seignorial obligations or by asserting claims to the free use of forests and communal pastures. In such actions the peasant will, revitalized by periodic subsistence crises, tried to maintain control over legal institutions, and therefore to retain relative social autonomy.

A recent polemical essay by Alan Macfarlane constructed a picture of the social structure of medieval rural England premised on the notion that there was little difference in the nature of family attachment to land between freeholders and those who held their property ‘according to the customs of the manor.’ This essay has received severe criticism from R. H. Hilton, who argues that it ‘ignores the implications of the considerable predominance in many areas of customary land held in villein (i.e. servile) tenure, attempting to assimilate it to freehold as though it were equivalent to sixteenth century copyhold.’ The scale of the difference between these two positions may be attributed to the current state of research into the operation of customary law and its tribunals.

In 1930 Richard B. Morris published Studies in the History of American Law: With Special Reference to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. The monograph included a chapter on the legal status of colonial women that became extremely influential within a short time of its appearance. Morris's influence continues half a century later. Several books published in 1980 cite him as one of their primary authorities on women's rights: Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect & Ideology in Revolutionary America; Lyle Koehler, A Search for Power: The ‘Weaker Sex’ in Seventeenth-Century New England; and Mary Beth Norton, Liberty's Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750–1800. Other influential books and articles also rely heavily on Morris, including A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony by John Demos, ‘The Illusion of Change: Women and the American Revolution,’ by Joan Hoff Wilson, and ‘The Lady and the Mill Girl: Changes in the Status of Women in the Age of Jackson, 1800–1840,’ by Gerda Lerner. In fact, almost every published sentence on women's rights in early American law is followed by a footnote citing chapter three of Studies in the History of American Law. In The Bonds of Womanhood (1977), Nancy F. Cott declared that Morris's chapter ‘has become the standard essay on colonial women under the common law.’