Transcriber’s Note:

Depending on your font, the Tironian shorthand ‘et’, used in Anglo-Saxon passages and which resembles ‘7’, may not display properly.

Footnotes, which were numbered consecutively on each page, have been re-sequenced to be unique within the text. They have been repositioned to follow the chapter where they are referenced.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please see the transcriber’s [note] at the end of this text for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

Any corrections are indicated using an underline highlight. Placing the cursor over the correction will produce the original text in a small popup.

The cover image was prepared from the title page and is placed in the public domain.

Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will navigate the reader to the corresponding entry in the corrections table in the note at the end of the text.

THE
SAXONS IN ENGLAND.

A HISTORY OF

THE ENGLISH COMMONWEALTH

TILL THE PERIOD OF

THE NORMAN CONQUEST.

BY

JOHN MITCHELL KEMBLE, M.A., F.C.P.S.,

MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AT MUNICH, AND OF THE ROYAL

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AT BERLIN,

FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF HISTORY IN STOCKHOLM, AND OF THE

ROYAL SOCIETY OF HISTORY IN COPENHAGEN,

ETC. ETC. ETC.

“Nobilis et strenua, iuxtaque dotem naturae sagacissima gens Saxonum, ab antiquis etiam scriptoribus memorata.”

A NEW EDITION, REVISED BY

WALTER DE GRAY BIRCH, F.R.S.L.,

Senior Assistant of the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, Honorary Librarian of the Royal Society of Literature, Honorary Secretary of the British Archæological Association, etc.

VOLUME I.

LONDON:

BERNARD QUARITCH, 15 PICCADILLY.

1876.

PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS,
RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.

CONTENTS.

VOL. II.

BOOK II.

THE PRINCIPLES AND PROGRESS OF THE CHANGE IN ENGLAND.

Appendix.

THE

SAXONS IN ENGLAND.

BOOK II.
THE PRINCIPLES AND PROGRESS OF THE CHANGE IN ENGLAND.

CHAPTER I.
GROWTH OF THE KINGLY POWER.

The object of the First Book was generally to give a clear view of the principles upon which the original settlement of the Anglosaxons was founded. But as our earliest fortunes are involved in an obscurity caused by the almost total absence of contemporary records, and as the principles themselves are not historically developed in all their integrity, at least in this country, many conclusions could only be arrived at through a system of induction, by comparing the known facts of Teutonic history in other lands, or at earlier periods, by tracing the remnants of old institutions in their influence upon society in an altered, and perhaps somewhat deteriorated, condition, and lastly by general reasoning derived from the nature of society itself. This Second Book is however devoted to the historical development of those principles, in periods whereof we possess more sufficient record, and to an investigation of the form in which, after a long series of compromises, our institutions slowly and gradually unfolded themselves, till the close of the Anglosaxon monarchy. The two points upon which this part of the subject more particularly turns, are, the introduction of Christianity, and the progressive consolidation and extension of the kingly power; and round these two points the chapters of this Book will naturally group themselves. It is fortunate for us that the large amount of historical materials which we possess, enables us to follow the various social changes in considerable detail, and renders it possible to let the Anglosaxons tell their own story to a much greater extent than in the first Book.

In the course of years, continual wars had removed a multitude of petty kings or chieftains from the scene; a consolidation of countries had taken place; actual sovereignty, grounded on the law of force, on possession, or on federal compacts, had raised a few of the old dynasts above the rank of their fellows; the other nobles, and families of royal lineage, had for the most part submitted to the law of the comitatus, swelling the ranks, adorning the court, and increasing the power of princes who had risen upon their degradation; and at the commencement of the seventh century, England presented the extraordinary spectacle of at least eight independent kingdoms, of greater or less power and influence, and, as we may reasonably believe, very various degrees of civil and moral cultivation. In the extreme south-eastern corner of the island was the Kentish confederation, comprising in all probability the present counties of Kent, Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, and Sussex, whose numerous kings acknowledged the supremacy of Æðelberht, the son of Eormanríc, a prince of the house of Æscings, originally perhaps a Sussex family, but who claimed their royal descent from Wóden, through Hengist, the first traditional king of Kent. Under this head three of the eight named kingdoms were thus united; but successful warlike enterprise or the praise of superior wisdom had extended the political influence of the Æscing even to the southern bank of the Humber. Next to Sussex, along the southern coast, and as far westward as the border of the Welsh in Dorsetshire or Devon, lay the kingdom of the Westsaxons or Gewissas, which stretched northward to the Thames and westward to the Severn, and probably extended along the latter river over at least a part of Gloucestershire: this kingdom, or rather confederation, comprised all or part of the following counties; Hampshire with the Isle of Wight, a tributary sovereignty; Dorsetshire, perhaps a part of Devonshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, a portion of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Middlesex, up to the Chiltern Hills. Eastanglia occupied the extreme east of the island, stretching to the north and west up to the Wash and the marshes of Lincoln and Cambridgeshire, and comprehending, together with its marches, Norfolk and Suffolk, and part at least of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. Mercia with its dependent sovereignties occupied nearly all the remaining portion of England east of the Severn and south of the Humber, including a portion of Herefordshire, and probably also of Salop, beyond the western bank of the former river: while two small kingdoms, often united into one, but when separate, called Deira and Bernicia, filled the remaining space from the Humber to the Pictish border, which may be represented by a line running irregularly north-east from Dumbarton to Inverkeithing[^[1]]. In the extreme west the remains of the Keltic populations who had disdained to place themselves under the yoke of the Saxons, still maintained a dangerous and often threatening independence: and Cornwall and Devon, North and South Wales, Cheshire, Lancashire, Cumberland, perhaps even part of Northumberland, still formed important fortresses, garrisoned by this hardy and unsubjugated race. Beyond the Picts, throughout the north of Scotland, and in the neighbouring island of Ireland, were the Scots, a Keltic race, but not so nearly allied as the Cornish, Cymric and Pictish tribes.

It is probable enough that the princes who presided over these several aggregations of communities, had their traditional or family alliances and friendships, as well as their enmities, political and personal, and that some description of public law may consequently have grown up among them, by which their national intercourse was regulated. But we cannot suppose this to have been either very comprehensive or well defined. Least of all can we find any proof that there was a community of action among them, of a systematic and permanent character. A national priesthood, and a central service in which all alike participated, had any such existed, might have formed a point of union for all the races; but there is no record of this, and, I think, but little probability of its having been found at any time. If we consider the various sources from which the separate populations were derived, and the very different periods at which they became masters of their several seats; their constant hostility and the differences of language[^[2]] and law; above all the distance of their settlements, severed by deep and gloomy forests, rude hills, unforded streams, or noxious and pestilential morasses, we can hardly imagine any concert among them for the establishment of a common worship; it is even doubtful—so meagre are our notices of the national heathendom—whether the same gods were revered all over England; although the descent of all the reigning families from Wóden would seem to speak for his worship at least having been universal. Again, there is reason to doubt that the priesthood occupied here quite so commanding a position as they may have enjoyed upon the continent, partly because the carelessness or hatred of the British Christians refused to attempt the conversion of their adversaries[^[3]], and thus afforded no opportunity for a reaction or combined effort at resistance on the part of the Pagans; and partly because we cannot look for any very deep rooted religious convictions in the breast of the wandering, military adventurer, removed from the time-hallowed sites of ancient, local worship, and strongly tempted to “trow upon himself,” in preference to gods whose powers and attributes he had little leisure to contemplate. The words of Coifi, a Northumbrian high-priest, to Eádwini, do at any rate imply a feeling on his part, that his position was not so brilliant and advantageous as he thought himself entitled to expect; and the very expressions he uses, implying a very considerable degree of subordination to the king of one principality[^[4]], are hardly consistent with the hypothesis of a national hierarchy, which must have assumed a position scarcely inferior to that of the sovereigns themselves. Finally, I cannot believe that, had such an organization and such a body existed, there would be no trace of the opposition it must have offered to the introduction of the new creed: some record there must have been of a triumph so signal as that of Christianity under such circumstances; and the good believers who lavish miracles upon most inadequate occasions, must have given us some well-authenticated cases by which the sanctity of the monk was demonstrated to the confusion of the pagan. The silence of the Christian historian is an eloquent evidence of the insignificant power of the heathen priesthood.

Much less can we admit that there was any central political authority, recognized, systematic and regulated, by which the several kingdoms were combined into a corporate body. There is indeed a theory, respectable for its antiquity, and reproduced by modern ingenuity, according to which this important fact is assumed, and we are not only taught that the several kingdoms formed a confederation, at whose head, by election or otherwise, one of the princes was placed with imperial power, but that this institution was derived by direct imitation from the custom of the Roman empire: we further learn that the title of this high functionary was Bretwalda, or Emperor of Britain, and that he possessed the imperial decorations of the Roman state[^[5]]. When this discovery was first made I know not, but the most detailed account that I have seen may be given from the, in many respects, excellent and neglected work of Rapin. He tells us[^[6]]:—

“The Saxons, Jutes, and Angles, that conquered the best part of Britain, looking upon themselves as one and the same people[^[7]], as they had been in Germany, established a form of government, as like as possible to what they had lived under in their own country. They formed their Wittena-Gemot, or assembly of wise men, to settle the common affairs of the seven kingdoms, and conferred the command of their armies upon one chosen out of the seven kings, to whom, for that reason no doubt, some have given the title of Monarch, on pretence of his having the precedence and some superiority over the rest. But to me that dignity seems rather to have been like that of Stadtholder of the United Provinces of the Low Countries. There was however some difference between the Saxon government in Britain and that in Germany. For instance, in Germany the governor of each province entirely depended on the General Assembly, where the supreme power was lodged; whereas in Britain, each king was sovereign in his own dominions. But notwithstanding this, all the kingdoms together were, in some respects, considered as the same state, and every one submitted to the resolutions of the General Assembly of the Seven Kingdoms, to which he gave his consent by himself or representative.... A free election, and sometimes force, gave the Heptarchy a chief or monarch, whose authority was more or less, according to their strength[^[8]]. For though the person invested with this office had no right to an unlimited authority, there was scarce one of these monarchs but what aspired to an absolute power.”

This description has at least the advantage of detail and of consistency, even though it should unfortunately lack that of truth; but most of those who in more modern times have adopted the hypothesis, refrain from giving us any explanation of the fact it assumes: they tell us indeed the title, and profess to name those who successively bore it, but they are totally silent as to the powers of this great public officer, as to the mode of his appointment, the manner in which he exerted his authority, or the object for which such authority was found necessary. I must frankly confess that I am unable to find any evidence whatever in favour of this view, which appears to me totally inconsistent with everything which we know of the state and principles of society at the early period with which we have to deal. In point of fact, everything depends upon the way in which we construe a passage of Beda, together with one in the Saxon Chronicle, borrowed from him, and the meaning which history and philology justify us in giving to the words made use of by both authors. As the question is of some importance, it may as well be disposed of at once, although only two so-called Bretwaldas are recorded previous to the seventh century.

Modern ingenuity, having hastily acquiesced in the existence of this authority, has naturally been somewhat at a loss to account for it; yet this is obviously the most important part of the problem: accordingly Mr. Sharon Turner looks upon the Bretwalda as a kind of war-king, a temporary military leader: he says[^[9]],—

“The disaster of Ceawlin gave safety to Kent. Ethelbert preserved his authority in that kingdom, and at length proceeded to that insulary predominance among the Anglosaxon kings, which they called the Bretwalda, or the ruler of Britain. Whether this was a mere title assumed by Hengist, and afterwards by Ella, and continued by the most successful Anglosaxon prince of his day, or conceded in any national council of all the Anglosaxons, or ambitiously assumed by the Saxon king that most felt and pressed his temporary power,—whether it was an imitation of the British unbennaeth, or a continuation of the Saxon custom of electing a war-cyning, cannot now be ascertained.”

To this he adds in a note:—

“The proper force of this word Bretwalda cannot imply conquest, because Ella the First is not said to have conquered Hengist or Cerdic; nor did the other Bretwaldas conquer the other Saxon kingdoms.”

Again he returns to the charge: in the eighth chapter of the same book, he says[^[10]]:—

“Perhaps the conjecture on this dignity which would come nearest the truth, would be, that it was the Walda or ruler of the Saxon kingdoms against the Britons, while the latter maintained the struggle for the possession of the country,—a species of Agamemnon against the general enemy, not a title of dignity or power against each other. If so, it would be but the war-king of the Saxons in Britain, against its native chiefs.”

Lappenberg, adopting this last view, refines upon it in detail: he believes the Bretwalda to have been the elected generalissimo of the Saxons against the Welsh or other Keltic races, and that as the tide of conquest rolled onwards, the dignity shifted to the shoulders of that prince whose position made him the best guardian of the frontiers. But this will scarcely account to us for the Bretwaldadom of Ælle in Sussex, Æðelberht in Kent, or Rǽdwald in Eastanglia; yet these are three especially named. Besides we have a right to require some evidence that there ever was a common action of the Saxons against the Britons, and that they really were in the habit of appointing war-kings in England, two points on which there exists not a tittle of proof. Indeed it seems clear to me that a piece of vicious philology lurks at the bottom of this whole theory, and that it rests entirely upon the supposition that Bretwalda means Ruler of the Britons, which is entirely erroneous. Yet one would think that on this point there ought to have been no doubt for even a moment, and that it hardly required for its refutation the philological demonstration which will be given. Let us ask by whom was the name used or applied? By the Saxons: but surely the Saxons could never mean to designate themselves by the name Bret, Britain; nor on the other hand could a general against the Britons be properly called their wealda or king, the relation expressed by the word wealda being that of sovereignty over subjects, not opposition to enemies.

Moreover, if this British theory were at all sound, how could we account for the title being so rarely given to the kings of Wessex, and never to those of Mercia, both of whom were nevertheless in continual hostile contact with the Welsh, and of whom the former at least exercised sovereign rights over a numerous Welsh population dispersed throughout their dominions? Again, why should it have been given to successive kings of Northumberland, whose contact with the British aborigines, even as Picts, was not of any long continuance or great moment[^[11]]? Above all, why should it not have been given to Æðelfríð, who as Beda tells us was the most severe scourge the Kelts had ever met with[^[12]]? But there are other serious difficulties arising from the nature of the military force which, on any one of the suppositions we are considering, must have been placed at this war-king’s disposal: is it, for example, conceivable, that people whose military duty did not extend beyond the defence of their own frontiers, and who even then could only be brought into the field under the conduct of their own shire-officers, would have marched away from home, under a foreign king, to form part of a mixed army? still more, that the comites of various princes, whose bond and duty were of the most strictly personal character, could have been mustered under the banner of a stranger[^[13]]? Yet all this must be assumed to have been usual and easy, if we admit the received opinions as to the Bretwalda. We should also be entitled to ask how it happened that Wulfhere, Æðelbald, Offa, Cénwulf, the preeminently military kings of the Mercians, should have refrained from the use of a title so properly belonging to their preponderating power in England, and so useful in giving a legal and privileged authority to the measures of permanent aggrandizement which their resources enabled them to take?

Another supposition, that this dignity was in some way connected with the ecclesiastical establishment, the foundation of new bishoprics[^[14]] or the presidency of the national synods, seems equally untenable; for in the first place there were Bretwaldas before the introduction of Christianity; and the intervention of particular princes in the foundation of sees, without the limits of their own dominions, may be explained without having recourse to any such hypothesis; again, the Church never agreed to any unity till the close of the seventh century under Theodore of Tarsus; and lastly the presidency of the synods, which were generally held in Mercia[^[15]], was almost exclusively in the hands of the Mercian princes, till the Danes put an end to their kingdom, and yet those princes never bore the title at all. In point of fact, there was no such special title or special office, and the whole theory is constructed upon an insufficient and untenable basis.

It will be readily admitted that the fancies of the Norman chroniclers may at once be passed over unnoticed; they are worth no more than the still later doctrines of Rapin and others, and rest upon nothing but their explanation of passages which we are equally at liberty to examine and test for ourselves: I mean the passages already alluded to from Beda and the Saxon Chronicle. Let us see then what Beda says upon this subject. He speaks thus of Æðelberht[^[16]]:—

“In the year of our Lord’s incarnation six hundred and sixteen, which is the twenty-first from that wherein Augustine and his comrades were despatched to preach unto the race of the Angles, Æðelberht, the king of the men of Kent, after a temporal reign which he had held most gloriously for six and fifty years, entered the eternal joys of the heavenly kingdom: who was indeed but the third among the kings of the Angle race who ruled over all the southern provinces, which are separated from those of the north by the river Humber and its contiguous boundaries; but the first of all who ascended to the kingdom of heaven. For the first of all who obtained this empire was Ælli, king of the Southsaxons: the second was Caelin, king of the Westsaxons, who in their tongue was called Ceaulin: the third, as I have said, was Æðilberht, king of the men of Kent: the fourth was Redwald, king of the Eastanglians, who even during the life of Æðilberht, obtained predominance for his nation: the fifth, Aeduini, king of the race of Northumbrians, that is, the race which inhabits the northern district of the river Humber, presided with greater power over all the populations which dwell in Britain, Britons and Angles alike, save only the men of Kent; he also subdued to the empire of the Angles, the Mevanian isles, which lie between Ireland and Britain: the sixth Oswald, himself that most Christian king of the Northumbrians, had rule with the same boundaries: the seventh Osuiu, his brother, having for some time governed his kingdom within nearly the same boundaries, for the most part subdued or reduced to a tributary condition the nations also of the Picts and Scots, who occupy the northern ends of Britain.”

Certainly, it must be admitted that the exception of the Men of Kent, in the case of Eádwini, is a serious blow to the Bretwalda theory. I have used the word predominance, to express the ducatus or leadership, of Beda, and it is clear that such a leadership is what he means to convey. But in all the cases which he has cited, it is equally clear from every part of his book, that the fact was a merely accidental one, fully explained by the peculiar circumstances in every instance: it is invariably connected with conquest, and preponderant military power: a successful battle either against Kelt or Saxon, by removing a dangerous neighbour or dissolving a threatening confederacy, placed greater means at the disposal of any one prince than could be turned against him by any other or combination of others; and he naturally assumed a right to dictate to them, iure belli, in all transactions where he chose to consider his own interests concerned. But all the facts in every case show that there was no concert, no regular dignity, and no regular means of obtaining it; that it was a mere fluctuating superiority, such as we may find in Owhyhee, Tahiti, or New Zealand, due to success in war, and lost in turn by defeat. On the rout of Ceawlin, the second Bretwalda, by the Welsh, we learn that he was expelled from the throne, and succeeded by Ceólwulf, who spent many years in struggles against Angles, Welsh, Scots and Picts[^[17]]: according to Turner’s and Lappenberg’s theory, he was the very man to have been made Bretwalda; but we do not find this to have been the case, or that the dignity returned to the intervening Sussex; but Æðelberht of Kent, whose ambition had years before led him to measure his force against Ceawlin’s, stepped into the vacant monarchy. The truth is that Æðelberht, who had husbanded his resources, and was of all the Saxon kings the least exposed to danger from the Keltic populations, was enabled to impose his authority upon his brother kings, and to make his own terms: and in a similar way, at a later period, it is clear that Rædwald of Eastanglia was enabled to deprive him of it. I therefore again conclude that this so-called Bretwaldadom was a mere accidental predominance; there is no peculiar function, duty or privilege anywhere mentioned as appertaining to it; and when Beda describes Eádwini of Northumberland proceeding with the Roman tufa or banner before him, as an ensign of dignity, he does so in terms which show that it was not, as Palgrave seems to imagine, an ensign of imperial authority used by all Bretwaldas, but a peculiar and remarkable affectation of that particular prince. Before I leave this word ducatus, I may call attention to the fact that Ecgberht, whom the Saxon Chronicle adds to the list given by Beda, has left some charters in which he also uses it[^[18]], and that they are the only charters in which it does occur. From these it appears that he dated his reign ten years earlier than his ducatus, that is, that he was rex in 802, but not dux till 812. Now it is especially observable that in 812 he had not yet commenced that career of successful aggression against the other Saxon kingdoms, which justified the Chronicler in numbering him among those whom Camden and Rapin call the Monarchs, and Palgrave the Emperors of Britain. He did not attack Mercia and subdue Kent till 825: in the same year he formed his alliance with Eastanglia: only in 820 did he ruin the power of Mercia, and receive the submission of the Northumbrians. But in the year 812 he did move an army against the Welsh, and remained for several months engaged in military operations within their frontier: there is every reason then to think that the ducatus of Ecgberht is only a record of those conquests over his British neighbours, which enabled him to turn his hand with such complete success against his Anglosaxon rivals; and thus that it has no reference to the expression used by Beda to express the factitious preponderance of one king over another. Let us now inquire to what the passage in the Saxon Chronicle amounts, which has put so many of our historians upon a wrong track, by supplying them with the suspicious name Bretwalda. Speaking of Ecgberht the Chronicler says[^[19]], “And the same year king Ecgberht overran the kingdom of the Mercians, and all that was south of the Humber; and he was the eighth king who was Bretwalda.” And then, after naming the seven mentioned by Beda, and totally omitting all notice of the Mercian kings, he concludes,—“the eighth was Ecgberht, king of the Westsaxons.”

Now it is somewhat remarkable that of six manuscripts in which this passage occurs, one only reads Bretwalda: of the remaining five, four have Bryten-walda or-wealda, and one Breten-anweald, which is precisely synonymous with Brytenwealda. All the rules of orderly criticism would therefore compel us to look upon this as the right reading, and we are confirmed in so doing by finding that Æðelstán in one of his charters[^[20]] calls himself also “Brytenwealda ealles ðyses ealondes,”—ruler or monarch of all this island. Now the true meaning of this word, which is compounded of wealda, a ruler, and the adjective bryten, is totally unconnected with Bret or Bretwealh, the name of the British aborigines, the resemblance to which is merely accidental: bryten is derived from breótan, to distribute, to divide, to break into small portions, to disperse: it is a common prefix to words denoting wide or general dispersion[^[21]], and when coupled with wealda means no more than an extensive, powerful king, a king whose power is widely extended. We must therefore give up the most attractive and seducing part of all this theory, the name, which rests upon nothing but the passage in one manuscript of the Chronicle,—and that, far from equal to the rest in antiquity or correctness of language: and as for anything beyond the name, I again repeat that we are indebted for it to nothing but the ingenuity of modern scholars, deceived by what they fancied the name itself; that there is not the slightest evidence of a king exercising a central authority, and very little at any time, of a combined action among the Saxons; and that it is quite as improbable that any Saxon king should ever have had a federal army to command, as it is certainly false that there ever was a general Witena gemót for him to preside over. I must therefore in conclusion declare my disbelief as well in a college of kings, as in an officer, elected or otherwise appointed, whom they considered as their head. The development of all the Anglosaxon kingdoms was of far too independent and fortuitous a character for us to assume any general concert among them, especially as that independence is manifested upon those points particularly, where a central and combined action would have been most certain to show itself[^[22]].

But although I cannot admit the growth of an imperial power in any such way, I still believe the royal authority to have been greatly consolidated, and thereby extended, before the close of the sixth century. It is impossible, for a very long period, to look upon the Anglosaxon kingdoms otherwise than as camps, planted upon an enemy’s territory, and not seldom in a state of mutual hostility. All had either originated in, or had at some period fallen into, a state of military organization, in which the leaders are permitted to assume powers very inconsistent with the steady advance of popular liberty; and in the progress of their history, events were continually recurring which favoured the permanent establishment and consolidation of those powers. Upon all their western and northern frontiers lay ever-watchful and dangerous Keltic populations, the co-operation of whose more inland brethren was always to be dreaded, and whose attacks were periodically renewed till very long after the preponderance of one crown over the rest was secured,—attacks only too often favoured by the civil wars and internal struggles of the Germanic conquerors. Upon all the eastern coasts hovered swarms of daring adventurers, ready to put in practice upon the Saxons themselves the frightful lesson of piracy which these had given the Roman world in the third and fourth centuries, and ever welcomed by the Keltic inhabitants as the ministers of their own vengeance. The constant state of military preparation which was thus rendered necessary could have no other result than that of giving a vast preponderance to the warlike over the peaceful institutions; of raising the practised and well-armed comites to a station yearly more and more important; of leading to the multiplication of fortresses, with their royal castellans and stationary garrisons; nay—by constantly placing the freemen under martial law, and inuring them to the urgencies of military command—of finally breaking down the innate feeling and guarantees of freedom, and even of materially ruining the cultivator, all whose energy and all whose time were not too much, if a comfortable subsistence was to be wrung from the soil he owned. It is also necessary to bear in mind the power derived from forcible possession of lands from which the public enemy had been expelled, and which, we may readily believe, turned to the advantage, mostly if not exclusively, of the king and his nobles. No wonder then if at a very early period the Mark-organization, which contained within itself the seeds of its own decay, had begun to give way, and that a systematic commendation, as it was called, to the adjacent lords was beginning to take its place. To the operation of these natural causes we must refer the indisputable predominance established by a few superior kings before the end of the sixth century, not only over the numerous dynastic families which still remained scattered over the face of the country, but also over the free holders in the gá or scýr.

To these however was added one of still greater moment. The introduction of Christianity in a settled form, which finally embraced the whole Saxon portion of the island, dates from the commencement of the seventh century. Though not unknown to the various British tribes, who had long been in communication with their fellow-believers of Gaul and, according to some authorities[^[23]], of Rome, it had made but little progress among the German tribes, although a tendency to give it at least a tolerant hearing had for some time been making way among them[^[24]]. But in 595 Pope Gregory the Great determined upon giving effect to his scheme of a missionary expedition to Britain, which he had long revolved, had at one time determined to undertake in person, and had relinquished only as far as his own journey was concerned, in consequence of the opposition manifested by the inhabitants of Rome to his quitting the city. Having finally matured his plan, he selected a competent number of monks and ecclesiastics, and despatched them under the guidance of Augustine, with directions to found an episcopal church among the heathen Saxons. The progress and success of this missionary effort must not be treated of here; suffice it to say that, one by one, the Teutonic kingdoms of the island accepted the new faith, and that before the close of the first century from the arrival of Augustine, the whole of German England was united into one church, under a Metropolitan, who accidentally was also a missionary from Rome[^[25]].

Strange would it have been had the maxims of law or rules of policy which these men brought with them, been different from those which prevailed in the place from which they came. Roman feelings, Roman views and modes of judging, the traditions of the empire and the city, the legislation of the emperors and the popes,—these were their sources both of opinion and action. The predominance of the kings must have appeared to them natural and salutary; the subordination of all men to their appointed rulers was even one of the doctrines of Christianity itself, as taught by the great apostle of the gentiles, and recommended by the example of the Saviour. But the consolidation and advancement of the royal authority, if they could only form a secure alliance with it, could not but favour their great object of spreading the Gospel among populations otherwise dispersed and inaccessible: hence it seems probable that all their efforts would be directed to the end which circumstances already favoured, and that the whole spiritual and temporal influence of the clergy would be thrown into the scale of monarchy. Moreover the clergy supplied a new point of approach between our own and foreign courts: to say nothing of Rome, communication with which soon became close and frequent, very shortly after their establishment here, we find an increased and increasing intercourse between our kings and those of Gaul; and this again offered an opportunity of becoming familiar with[with] the views and opinions which had flowed, as it were, from the imperial city into the richest and happiest of her provinces. The strict Teutonic law of wergyld, they perhaps could not prevail to change, and to the last, the king, like every other man, continued to have his price; but the power of the clergy is manifest even in the very first article of Æðelberht’s law, and to it we in all probability owe the ultimate affixing of the penalty of death to the crime of high-treason,—a marvellous departure from the ancient rule. Taking all the facts of the case into account, we cannot but believe that the introduction of Christianity, which not only taught the necessity of obedience to lawful authority, but accustomed men to a more central and combined exercise of authority through the very spectacle of the episcopal system itself, tended in no slight degree to perpetuate the new order which was gradually undermining and superseding the old Mark-organization, and thus finally brought England into the royal circle of European families[^[26]].

The chapters of the present Book will be devoted to an investigation of the institutions proper to this altered condition, to the officers by whom the government of the country was conducted, from the seventh to the eleventh centuries, and to the general social relations which thus arose. If in the course of our investigation it should appear that a gradually diminishing share of freedom remained to the people, yet must we bear in mind that the old organization was one which could not keep pace with the progress of human society, and that it was becoming daily less suited to the ends for which it first existed; that in this, as in all great changes, a compromise necessarily took place, and mutual sacrifices were required; after all, that we finally retained a great amount of rational and orderly liberty, full of the seeds of future development, and gained many of the advantages of Roman cultivation, without paying too high a price for them, in the loss of our nationality.

[1]. There is not much positive evidence on this subject: but perhaps the following considerations may appear of weight. The distinctive names of Water in the two principal Keltic languages of these islands, appear to be Aber and Inver: the former occurs frequently in Wales, the latter never: on the other hand, Aber rarely, if ever, occurs in Ireland, while Inver does. If we now take a good map of England and Wales and Scotland, we shall find the following data.

In Wales:

Aber-avon, lat. 51° 36´ N., long. 3° 47´ W.

Abergavenny, lat. 51° 49´ N., long. 3° 2´ W.[3° 2´ W.]

Abergwilli, lat. 51° 52´ N., long. 4° 17´ W.

Aberystwith, lat. 52° 25´ N., long. 4° 4´ W.

Aberfraw, lat. 53° 12´ N., long. 4° 28´ W.

Abergele, lat. 53° 20´ N., long. 3° 38´ W.

In Scotland:

Aberlady, lat. 56° 0´ N., long. 2° 52´ W.

Aberdour, lat. 56° 3´ N., long. 3° 17´ W.

Aberfoil, lat. 56° 20´ N., long. 4° 21´ W.

Abernethy, lat. 56° 19´ N., long. 3° 18´ W.

Aberbrothie (Arbroath), lat. 56° 33´ N., long. 2° 35´ W.

Aberfeldy, lat. 56° 37´ N., long. 3° 51´ W.

Abergeldie, lat. 57° 3´ N., long. 3° 6´ W.

Aberchalder, lat. 57° 6´ N., long. 4° 46´ W.

Aberdeen, lat. 57° 8´ N., long. 2° 5´ W.

Aberchirdir, lat. 57° 34´ N., long. 2° 37´ W.

Aberdour, lat. 57° 40´ N., long. 2° 11´ W.

In Scotland:

Inverkeithing, lat. 56° 2´ N., long. 3° 23´ W.

Inverary, lat. 56° 15´ N., long. 5° 4´ W.

Inverarity, lat. 56° 36´ N., long. 2° 54´ W.

Inverbervie, lat. 56° 52´ N., long. 2° 21´ W.

Invergeldie, lat. 57° 1´ N., long. 3° 12´ W.

Invernahavon, lat, 57° 1´ N., long. 4° 9´ W.

Invergelder, lat. 57° 2´ N., long. 3° 15´ W.

Invermoriston, lat. 57° 12´ N., long. 4° 40´ W.

Inverness, lat. 57° 28´ N., long. 4° 13´ W.

Invernetty, lat. 57° 29´ N., long. 1° 48´ W.

Invercaslie, lat. 57° 58´ N., long. 4° 36´ W.

Inver, lat. 58° 9´ N., long. 5° 10´ W.

The line of separation then between the Welsh or Pictish, and the Scotch or Irish Kelts, if measured by the occurrence of these names, would run obliquely from S.W. to N.E., straight up Loch Fyne, following nearly the boundary between Perthshire and Argyle, trending to the N.E. along the present boundary between Perth and Inverness,[Inverness,] Aberdeen and Inverness, Banff and Elgin, till about the mouth of the river Spey. The boundary between the Picts and English may have been much less settled, but it probably ran from Dumbarton, along the upper edge of Renfrewshire, Lanark and Linlithgow till about Abercorn, that is along the line of the Clyde to the Frith of Forth.

[2]. In the very early periods the Saxon inhabitants of different parts of England would probably have found it difficult to understand one another.

[3]. Beda, Hist. Eccl. i. 22. “Qui, inter alia inenarrabilium scelerum facta, quae historicus eorum Gildas flebili sermone describit et hoc addebant, ut nunquam genti Saxonum sive Anglorum secum Brittaniam incolenti verbum fidei praedicando committerent.”

[4]. “Tu vide, rex, quale sit hoc quod nobis modo praedicatur: ego autem tibi verissime quod certum didici, profiteor, quia nihil omnino virtutis habet, nihil utilitatis, religio illa quam hucusque tenuimus; nullus enim tuorum studiosius quam ego culturae deorum nostrorum se subdidit, et nihilominus multi sunt qui ampliora a te beneficia quam ego, et maiores accipiunt dignitates, magisque prosperantur in omnibus quae agenda vel adquirenda disponunt. Si autem dii aliquid ualerent me potius iuvare vellent, qui illis impensius servire curavi.” Beda, H. E. ii. 13. That Coifi is a genuine Northumbrian name, and not that of a Keltic druid, is shown in a paper on Anglosaxon surnames, read before the Archæological Institute at Winchester by the author in 1845.

[5]. Palgrave, Anglos. Commonw. i. 562 seq. The Roman part of the theory is very well exploded by Lappenberg, who nevertheless gives far too much credence to the rest.

[6]. Vol. i. p. 42 of Tindal’s translation.

[7]. This seems very doubtful, at least until lapse of years, commerce, and familiar intercourse had broken down the barriers between different races.

[8]. In the second edition of Tindal’s Rapin there is a print representing the Kings of the Heptarchy in council. The president, Monarch or Bretwalda, is very amusingly made larger and more ferocious than the rest, to express his superior dignity!

[9]. Hist. Angl. Sax. bk. iii. ch. 5, vol. i. p. 319.

[10]. Hist. Angl. Sax. i. 378.

[11]. I am not aware of the Picts, Peohtas, having ever been numbered among the Bretwealhas.

[12]. Hist. Eccl. i. 34. “Nemo enim in tribunis, nemo in regibus plures eorum terras, exterminatis vel subiugatis indigenis, aut tributarias genti Anglorum, aut habitabiles fecit.”

[13]. Nearly the only instance recorded of a mixed army, is that of Penda at Winwedfeld; but it does not appear that this consisted of anything more than the Comitatus of various chieftains personally dependent upon, or in alliance with, himself. We do not learn that οἰOswiu’s victory gave him any rights over the freemen in Eastanglia, which could hardly have been wanting had the Eastanglian hereban or fyrd served under Penda.

[14]. Lappenberg seems to connect these ideas together.

[15]. The synods were mostly held at Cealchýð or at Clofeshoas. The first of these places is doubtful: all that can be said with certainty, is, that it was not Challock in Kent, as Ingram supposes: the Saxon name of that place was Cealfloca. I entertain little doubt that Clofeshoas was in the county of Gloucester and hundred of Westminster.

[16]. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5.

[17]. Chron. Sax. an. 591, 597.

[18]. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 1038, 1039, 1041.

[19]. Chron. Sax. an. 827.

[20]. Cod. Dipl. No. 1110. “Ongolsaxna cyning ⁊ brytænwalda ealles ðyses iglandæs;” and, in the corresponding Latin, “Rex et rector totius huius Britanniae insulae.” an. 34.

[21]. The following words compounded with Bryten will explain my meaning to the Saxon scholar: Bryten-cyning (exactly equivalent to bryten-wealda), a powerful king. Cod. Exon. p. 331. Bryten-grund, the wide expense of earth. Ibid. p. 22. Bryten-ríce, a spacious realm. Ibid. p. 192. Bryten-wong, the spacious plain of earth. Ibid. p. 24. The adjective is used in the same sense, but uncompounded, thus; breotone bold, a spacious dwelling. Cædm. p. 308.

[22]. I allude more particularly to the introduction of Christianity, the enactment of laws, the establishment of dioceses, and military measures against the Britons. In two late publications, Mr. Hallam has bestowed his attention upon the same subject, and with much the same result. His acute and well-balanced mind seems to have been struck by the historical difficulties which lie in the way of the Bretwalda theory, though he does not attach so much force as I think we ought, to its total inconsistency with the general social state of Anglosaxon England in the sixth and seventh centuries, or as seems justly due to the philological argument. He cites from Adamnan a passage in these words: “(Oswald) totius Britanniae imperator ordinatus a deo.” But these words only prove at the utmost that Adamnan attributed a certain power to Oswald, connected in fact with conquest, and implying anything but consent, election or appointment, by his fellow-kings. And Mr. Hallam himself inclines to the belief that the title may have been one given to Oswald by his own subjects, rather than the assertion of a fact that he truly ruled over all Britain. He conceives that the three Northumbrian kings, having been victorious in war and paramount over the minor kingdoms, were really designated, at least among their own subjects, by the name Bretwalda, or ruler of Britain, and “totius Britanniae imperator,”—an assumption of pompous titles characteristic of the vaunting tone which continued to increase down to the Conquest. (Supplemental Notes to the View of the Middle Ages, p. 199 seq.) This however is hardly consistent with Beda and the Chronicle. The only passage in its favour is that of Adamnan, and this is confined to one prince. Adamnan however was a Kelt, and on this account I should be cautious respecting any language he used. Again, I am not prepared to admit the probability of a territorial title, at a time when kings were kings of the people, not of the land. But most of all do I demur to the reading Bretwalda itself, which rests upon the authority neither of coins nor inscriptions, and is supported only by one passage of a very bad manuscript; while it is refuted by five much better copies of the same work, and a charter: I therefore do not scruple to say that there is no authority for the word. In all but this I concur with Mr. Hallam, whose opinion is a most welcome support to my own.

[23]. See Schrödl, Erste Jahrhund. der Angl. Kirche, 1840, p. 2, notes. If the assertion of Prosper Tyro is to be trusted, that Celestine sent Germanus into Britain as his vicar, vice sua, the relation must have been an intimate one. See also Nennius, Hist. cap. 54. Neander however declares against the dependence of the British church upon Rome, and derives it from Asia Minor. Alg. Geschichte der Christ. Relig. u. Kirche, vol. i. pt. 1. p. 121. The question has been treated in late times as one of bitter controversy.

[24]. This may be inferred from Gregory’s letters to Theódríc and Theódbert and to Brunichildis. “Atque ideo pervenit ad nos Anglorum gentem ad fidem Christianam, Deo miserante, desideranter velle converti, sed sacerdotes e vicino negligere,” etc.; again: “Indicamus ad nos pervenisse Anglorum gentem, Deo annuente, velle fieri Christianam; sed sacerdotes, qui in vicino sunt, pastoralem erga eos sollicitudinem non habere.” Bed. Op. Minora, ii. 234, 235.

[25]. Theodore of Tarsus.

[26]. Æðelberht of Kent married a Frankish princess, so did Æðelwulf of Wessex. Offa of Mercia was engaged in negotiations for a nuptial alliance with the house of Charlemagne, and several Anglosaxon ladies of royal blood found husbands among the sovereign families of the Continent.

CHAPTER II.
THE REGALIA, OR RIGHTS OF ROYALTY.

In the strict theory of the Anglosaxon constitution the King was only one of the people[^[27]], dependent upon their election for his royalty, and upon their support for its maintenance. But he was nevertheless the noblest of the people, and at the head of the state, as long as his reign was felt to be for the general good, the keystone and completion of the social arch. Accordingly he was invested with various dignities and privileges, enabling him to exercise public functions necessary to the weal of the whole state, and to fill such a position in society as belonged to its chief magistrate. Although his life, like that of every other man, was assessed at a fixed price,—the price of an æðeling or person of royal blood,—it was further guarded by an equal amount, to be levied under the name of cynebót, the price of his royalty; and the true character of these distinctions is clear from the fact of the first sum belonging to the family, the second to the people[^[28]].

His personal rights, or royalties, consisted in the possession of large domains which went with the crown[^[29]], a sort of τεμενος, which were his own property only while he reigned, and totally distinct from such private estates as he might purchase for himself; in short his Woods and Forests, which the Crown held under the guarantee and supervision of the Witena gemót. Also, in the right to receive naturalia, or voluntary contributions in kind from the free men, which gradually became depraved into compulsory payments. Of these the earliest mention is by Tacitus[^[30]], who tells us that it was the custom, voluntarily and according to the power of the people, to present their princes with cattle and corn, which was not only a mark of honour but a substantial means of support; and the annals of the Frankish kings abound with instances of these presentations, which generally took place at the great meetings of the people, or Campus Madius[^[31]]. His further privileges consisted in the right to receive a portion of the fines payable for various offences, and the confiscation of offenders’ estates and chattels; in various distinctions of dress, dwelling, and the like; above all, in the maintenance of a standing army of comrades, called at a late period Húscarlas or household troops. It was for him to call together the Witena gemót or great council of the realm, whenever occasion demanded, and to lay before them propositions touching the general welfare of the state; in concurrence also with them, to extend or amend the existing legislation. At the same time I do not find that he possessed the power of dismissing these counsellors when he thought he had had enough of their advice, or of preventing them from meeting without his special summons: in which two rights, when injudiciously exercised, the historian finds the key to the downfall of so many monarchies. As general conservator of the public peace, both against foreign and domestic disturbers, the king could call out the fyrd, an armed levy or militia of the freemen, proclaim his peace upon the high-roads, and exact the cumulative fines by which the breach of it was punished. He was also the proper guardian of the coinage; and, in some respects, the fountain of justice, seeing that he might be resorted to, if justice could not be obtained elsewhere. We may also look upon him as, at least to a certain degree, the fountain of honour, since he could promote his comrades, thanes or ministers to higher rank, or to posts of dignity and power. All these various rights and privileges he possessed and exercised, by and with the advice, consent and licence of his Witena gemót or Parliament. It is desirable to consider the various details connected with this subject, in succession, and to illustrate them by examples from Anglosaxon authorities.

Although under a Christian dispensation the king could no longer be considered as appertaining to a family exclusively divine, yet the old national tradition still aided in securing to him the highest personal position in the commonwealth. He had a wergyld indeed, but it far exceeded that of any other class: nor was it in this alone that his paramount dignity was recognized, but in the comparative amount of the fines levied for offences against himself, his dependents or his property. And as the principle of all Teutonic law is, that the amount of bót or compensation shall vary directly with the dignity of the party leased, the high tariff appointed for royalty is evidence that the king really stood at the summit of the social order, and was the first in rank and honour, whatever he may have been in power. This is equally apparent in the earliest law, that of Æðelberht, as in Eádweard the Confessor’s, the latest. Thus, if he called his Leóde, fideles or thanes, to him, and they were injured on the way, a compensation double the ordinary amount could be exacted, and in addition a fine of fifty shillings to the king[^[32]]. And so likewise, if he honoured a subject by drinking at his house, all offences, then and there committed, were punishable by a double fine[^[33]]. Theft from him bore a ninefold, from a ceorl or freeman only a threefold, compensation[^[34]]. His mundbyrd or protection was valued at fifty shillings; that of an eorl and ceorl at twelve and six respectively[^[35]]: this applied to the cases where a man slew another in the king’s tún, the eorl’s tún, or the ceorl’s edor[^[36]]; and to the dishonour of his maiden-serf, which involved a fine of fifty shillings, while the eorl’s female cupbearer was protected only to the amount of twelve, the ceorl’s to that of six shillings[^[37]]. His messenger or armourer, if by chance they were guilty of manslaughter, could only be sued for a mitigated wergyld, by which they, though probably unfree, were placed upon a footing of equality with the freeman[^[38]]. His word, like that of a bishop, was to be incontrovertible, that is, no oath could be tendered to rebut it[^[39]]. He that fought in the king’s hall, if taken in the act, was liable to the punishment of death, or such doom as the king should decree[^[40]]: the king’s burhbryce, or violence done to his dwelling, was valued at 120 shillings, an archbishop’s at 90, a bishop’s or ealdorman’s at 60, a twelfhynde man’s at 30, a syxhynde’s at 15, but a ceorl’s or freeman’s only at 5; and these sums were to be doubled if the militia was on foot[^[41]]. His borhbryce, or breach of surety, and his mundbyrd or protection were raised by Ælfred to five pounds, while the archbishop’s was valued at three, the bishop’s or ealdorman’s at two pounds[^[42]]. He could give sanctuary to offenders for nine days[^[43]], and peculiar privileges of the same kind were extended to those monasteries which were subject to his farm or pastus[^[44]]. His geneát or comrade, if of the noble class, could swear for sixty hides of land[^[45]]. His horsewealh, the Briton employed in his stables, was placed on an equal footing with the freeman, at a wergyld of 200 shillings[^[46]]; and even his godson had a particular protection[^[47]]. Lastly, high-treason, by compassing the king’s death, harbouring of exiles, or of the king’s rebellious dependents, was made liable to the punishment of death[^[48]].

The political position of the king, at the head of the state, was secured by an oath of allegiance taken to him, by all subjects of the age of twelve years[^[49]], the ealdormen in the shires, the geréfan in the various districts or towns, summoned his witan and the legal period of majority among the Germans, for public purposes. In this capacity he appointed named the members of their body[^[50]]. In this capacity he was empowered to inflict fines upon the public officers, and even private individuals, for such neglect of duty as endangered the public interests: these fines were paid under the title of the king’s oferhýrnes, literally his disobedience: thus, if a man when summoned refuse to attend the gemót; if a geréfa refuse to do justice, when called upon, or to put the law in execution against offenders[^[51]], and in other similar cases where the whole framework of society requires the existence of a central support, having power to hold its scattered elements together, and in their places.

The maintenance of the public peace is the first duty of the king, and he is accordingly empowered to levy fines for all illegal breaches of it, by offences against life, property or honour[^[52]]: in very grave cases of continued guilt, he is even entrusted with the right of banishing and outlawing offenders, whose wealth and family connexions seem to place them beyond the reach of ordinary jurisdictions[^[53]]. Where the course of private war is to be settled by the legal compensations, it is the king’s peace which is established between the contending parties, the relatives and advocates of the slayer and the slain[^[54]]. And in accordance with these principles, we find the kings’s peace peculiarly proclaimed upon the great roads which are the highways of commerce and means of internal communication, and the navigable streams by which cities and towns are supplied with the necessary food for their inhabitants[^[55]]. And hence also he was allowed to proclaim his peace over all the land at certain times and seasons; as, for eight days at his coronation, and the same space of time at Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide. He might also, either by his hand or writ, give the privileges of his peace to estates which would otherwise not have possessed it, and thus place them upon the same footing of protection as his own private residences[^[56]]. The great divisions of the country, that is the shires, could only be determined by the central power: it is therefore provided that these shall be in the especial right of the king: “Divisiones scirarum regis proprie cum iudicio quatuor chiminorum regalium sunt[^[57]].” And to the end of maintaining peace, it appears to me that the king must also have been the authority to whom, at least in theory, it was left to settle the boundaries even of private estate; which on the conversion of folcland into bócland, he did, generally by his officers, but sometimes in person[^[58]].

But the great machinery for keeping peace between man and man, is the establishment of courts of justice, and a system by which each man can have law, by the consent and with the co-operation of his neighbours, without finding it necessary to arm in his own defence. It has been shown in the First Book, that such means did exist in the Mark and Gá courts; and that for nearly all the purposes of society, it is sufficient and advisable that justice should be done within the limits and by the authority of the freemen. A centralized system however brings modifications with it, even into the administration of justice. If, as I believe, the original king was a judge, who superinduced the warlike upon his peaceful functions, we can easily see how, with the growth of the monarchy, the judicial authority of the king should become extended. I cannot doubt that, in the historical times of the Anglosaxons, the king was the fountain of justice; by which expression I certainly do not mean that every suit must be commenced in one of the superior courts, or by an original writ, issuing out of the royal chancery[^[59]], but that the king was looked upon as the authority by whom the judges were supported and upheld, who was to be appealed to, if no justice could be got elsewhere, and who had the power to punish malversation in its administration by his officers.

We may leave the tale of Ælfred’s hanging the unjust judges to the same veracious chapter of history as records his invention of trial by jury: but it is obvious, from the words of his biographer, that he assumed some right to direct them in the exercise of their functions. He there appears not to have waited until complaints were made of their maladministration; but to have adopted the Frankish and Roman custom of dispatching Missi or royal commissioners into the provinces subject to his rule, in order to keep a proper check upon the proceedings of the public officers of justice. Asser says,—and I record his words with the highest respect and admiration of Ælfred’s real and great deserts,—that “he investigated with great sagacity the judgments given throughout almost all his region, which had been delivered when he was not present, as to what had been their character, whether they were just, or unjust. And if he detected any injustice in such judgments, he, either in person, or by people in his confidence, mildly enquired why the judges had given such unjust decisions, whether through ignorance, or through malversation of another kind, as fear, or favour, or hope of gain. And then, if the judges admitted that they had so decided, because they knew no better in the premises, he would gently and moderately correct their ignorance and folly, and say: ‘I marvel at your insolence, who, by God’s gift and mine, have taken upon yourselves the ministry and rank of wise men, but have neglected the study and labour of wisdom. Now it is my command that ye either give up at once the administration of those secular powers which ye enjoy, or pay a much more devoted attention to the studies of wisdom.’”

A certain pedantry is obvious enough in all this story, which, taken literally, under the circumstances of the time, is merely childish. Still, as Asser, though he may not entirely represent the facts of this period[^[60]] in their true Germanic sense, does very likely represent some of the king’s private wishes and opinions, this, among other passages, may serve to show why, in spite of his great merits, Ælfred once in his life had not a man to trust to in his realm. Let us look at the matter a little more closely. In the many kingdoms and districts which by conquest or inheritance came under the Westsaxon rule, various customary laws had prevailed[^[61]]. It is very natural that judgments given in accordance with these customs should often appear inconsistent and discordant to a body of men collected from different parts of the realm. Asser is therefore very probably in the right, when he says: “The nobles and non-nobles alike were frequently at variance in the meetings of the comites and praepositi, [that is, in the Witena gemóts,] so that scarcely any one would admit the decisions of the comites and praepositi [that is, in the shire, hundred and burhmót] to be correct.” But it is also probable that he misstates or overstates the extent of the royal power, when he continues: “But Ælfred, who for his own part knew that some injustice arose thereby, was not very willing to meddle with the decision of this judge or that; although he was compelled thereunto both by force of law and by stipulation[^[62]].”

For in fact the king was the authority to be resorted to in the last instance; not because he could introduce a system of jurisprudence founded upon Roman Decretals or Alaric’s Breviary,—which his favourite advisers would probably have liked much better than his ealdormen, præfects and people,—but because he could lend the aid of the state to enforce the judgments of the several courts, or even compel the courts to give judgment, by reason of the central power which he wielded as king. As long however as the courts themselves were willing to decide causes brought before them, which the people assembled in the gemóts did, under the presidency and direction of the customary officers, the king had no right to interfere: and even to appeal to the king until justice had been actually denied in the proper quarter was an offence under the Saxon law, punishable by fine[^[63]]. In short, under that law, the people were themselves the judges, and helped the geréfa to find the judgment, be the court what it might be. The king’s authority could give no more than power to execute the sentence. It is remarkable enough that while Asser speaks of the instruction and correction which Ælfred administered to his judges, he does not even insinuate that their decisions were reversed,—a fact perfectly intelligible when we bear in mind that these decisions were not those of judges in our sense of the word, and as the Mirror plainly understood them, but of the people in their own courts, finding the judgment according to customary law. It would have been a very different case had the courts been the king’s courts; and in those where the class called king’s thanes stood to right either before the king himself, or the king’s geréfa, it is possible that Ælfred may have interfered. This he had full right to do, inasmuch as these thanes were exclusively his own sócmen, and must take such law as he chose to give them[^[64]]. Indeed the words of Asser seem reconcileable with the general state of the law in Ælfred’s time only on the supposition that he refers to these royal courts or þeningmanna gemót; for the king could never have been expected to be present at every shire- or hundred-mót, and yet Asser says he diligently investigated such judgments as were given when he was not present, almost all over his region. This only becomes probable when confined to the administration of justice in the several counties in his own royal courts, and by his own royal reeves, in whose method of proceeding he was at liberty to introduce much more extensive alterations at pleasure, than he could have done in the customary law of the shires or other districts.

If however justice was entirely denied in the shire or hundred, then, iure imperii, the king had the power of interfering: and as it seems clear that such a case could only arise from the influence of some great officer being exerted to prevent the due course of law, it follows that the only remedy would lie in the king’s power to repress him; either by removing him from his office, if one derived from the crown, or iure belli, putting him down as a nuisance to the realm[^[65]].

In the later times of the Anglosaxon monarchy, a more immediate interference of the king in the administration of justice is discernible. It consists in what might be called the commendation of suits to the notice of the proper courts: and this, which was done by means of a writ or insigel, probably at first took place only in the case where a sócman of the king was impleaded in the shiremoot touching property subject to its jurisdiction, in fact where one party was a free landowner, the other in the king’s service or sócn; where of course the first would not stand to right in the royal courts, but before his peers in the shire or hundred[^[66]]. There is no mention in the laws of the Insigel or Breve[^[67]], but the charters give some evidence of what has been averred. In a very important record of the time of Æðelrǽd[Æðelrǽd] (990-995) these words occur[^[68]]:— “This writing showeth how Wynflǽd led her witness at Wulfamere before King Æðelrǽd; now that was Sigeríc the archbishop, and Ordbyrht the bishop, and Ælfríc the ealdorman, and Ælfðrýð the king’s mother: and they all bore witness that Ælfríc gave Wynflǽd the land at Hacceburnan, and at Brádan-felda in exchange for the land at Deccet. Then at once the king sent by the archbishop and them that bore witness with him, to Leófwine, and informed him of this. But he would consent to nothing, but that the matter should be brought before the shiremoot. And this was done. Then the king sent by Ælfhere the abbot, his insigel to the gemót at Cwichelmeshlǽw, and greeted all the Witan who were there assembled,—that is, Æðelsige the bishop, and Æscwig the bishop, and Ælfríc the abbot, and all the shire, and bade them arbitrate between Leófwine and Wynflǽd, as to them should seem most just[^[69]].”

There can be no mistake about the fact; but it does not amount to a proof that the cause could not have been settled without this formality: both parties to it were of the highest rank; but if the king’s arbitration were refused, the title to the land at Bradfield could legally be tried only in the county of Berkshire in which it lay. Something similar may have been intended by the notice which occurs in the record of another shiregemót (held about 1038 at Ægelnóðes stán in Herefordshire) where it is said that Tófig Prúda came thither on the kings errand[^[70]].

PARDON.—When judgment was pronounced, it appears that in certain cases, at least, the king possessed the power to stay execution and pardon the offender,—an exertion of the royal prerogative which one feels pleasure in thus referring to so ancient a period. The necessary evidence is supplied in many passages of the Laws[^[71]].

ESCHEAT AND FORFEITURE.—As the royal power became consolidated, and the great struggle between centralization and local independence assumed the new form of offences against the state, the nature of punishments became somewhat changed. The old pecuniary fines were found insufficient to repress disorder, and forfeiture to the king was resorted to, as a measure of increased severity. The laws proclaim this in the case of various breaches of the public peace: in treason Ælfred’s witan decreed not only the punishment of death, but also confiscation of all the possessions[^[72]]: in addition to the capital penalty which was incurred by fighting in the king’s house, forfeiture of all the chattels was decreed by Ini[^[73]]. If a lord maintained and abetted a notorious thief, he was to forfeit all he had[^[74]]. And if he neglected the fines provided, and would break the public peace either by thieving or supporting thieves, it was provided that the public authorities should ride to him, that is make war upon him, and despoil him of all he had, whereof half was to go to the king, half to the persons who took part in the expedition[^[75]]. But the charters supply numerous instances of forfeiture in consequence of crime, where the bóclands as well as the chattels are seized into the king’s hand; though in the case of folcland it is possible that the king could not claim the forfeiture without a positive grant of the witan. About 900, Helmstán having been guilty of theft, Eánwulf, the king’s geréfa at Tisbury seized all his chattels to the king’s hand[^[76]]: he held only lǽnland, and that could not be forfeited by him; but the words made use of show, that had it been his own bócland, it would not have escaped. We have an instance of a thane forfeiting lands to the king for adultery[^[77]], although he only held them on lease from the bishop of Winchester; and in like manner, a lady was deprived of her estate for incontinence[^[78]]. In 966 the bishop of Rochester having obtained judgment and damages against a lady, for forcible entry upon his lands (reáflác), the sheriff of Kent seized her manors of Fawkham and Bromley; all her possessions being forfeited to the king[^[79]]: lastly in various instances of theft, treason, and maintenance of ill-doers, we learn that their lands were forfeited to the king[^[80]].

In a case of intestacy, where there were no legal heirs, the king was allowed to enter upon the lands of Burghard, probably because he had been a royal geréfa[^[81]]. And in the ninth century, Wulfhere, an ealdorman, having deserted his duchy, his country and his lord, without license, his lands were adjudged as forfeit to the king[^[82]]. It would seem however that the mere neglect to cultivate or inhabit the land involved its confiscation to the king’s hand[^[83]], which may have been confined to folcland.

FINES.—It is hardly necessary to enter into any great detail respecting the fines which were imposed for various offences against the state, and which were levied by the public officers to the king’s use. The laws abound with examples: it may in general be concluded that the proceeds were nearly absorbed by the cost of collection, and that little remained to the king when the portions of the ealdorman and geréfa had been deducted. But still these fines require a particular notice, because they are especially enumerated by Cnut among the rights of his crown. He says:—“These are the rights which the king enjoys over all men in Wessex: that is, Mundbryce, and Hámsócne, Foresteal, Flýmena fyrmð, and Fyrdwíte, unless he will more amply honour any one, and concede to him this worship[^[84]].” In Mercia, he declares himself entitled to the same rights[^[85]], and also by the Danish law, that is in Northumberland and Eastanglia,—with the addition of Fihtwíte, and the fine for harbouring persons out of the Fríð or public peace[^[86]]. These evidently belong to him in his character of conservator of that peace: Mundbryce is breach of his own protection: Hámsócn is an aggravated assault upon a private dwelling: Foresteal here, the maintenance of criminals and interference to prevent the course of justice: Flýmena fyrmð, the comforting and supporting of outlaws or fugitives: Fyrdwíte, the penalty for neglecting to attend, or for deserting, the armed levy when duly proclaimed: Fihtwíte is the penalty for making private war. These regalia he could grant to a subject if such were his pleasure. But they are far from exhausting the catalogue of his rights: he possessed many others, which were either honourable or profitable, and were by him alienated in favour of his lay or clerical favourites.

TREASURE TROVE.—The first of these is Treasure-trove, which was, in all probability, of considerable importance and value: it is designated in Anglosaxon charters by the words “ealle hordas búfan eorðan and binnan eorðan,” and frequently occurs in the grants to monastic houses. In very early and heathen periods various causes combined to render the burial of treasure common. It was a point of honour to carry as much wealth with one from this world to the next as possible; and it was a recognized duty of the comites and household of a chief to sacrifice at his funeral, whatever valuable chattels they might have gained in his service. We may infer from Beówulf[^[87]] that a portion at least of the treasure he gained by his fatal combat with the firedrake was to accompany him in the tomb. Some of it was to be burnt with his body, but some, according to the practice of the pagan North, to be buried in the mound raised over his ashes[^[88]].

When we consider the truly extraordinary number of mounds or heathen burial-places which are mentioned in the boundaries of Saxon charters, we cannot doubt that large quantities of the precious metals were thus committed to the earth. To this superstitious cause others of a more practical nature were added. In all countries where from want of commerce and convenient internal communication, or from general insecurity, there is no profitable investment for capital, hoarding is largely resorted to by those who may chance to become possessed of articles of value: we need go no further than Ireland or France for an example, where one of the most striking signs of the prevalent barbarism, is the concealment of specie and plate, often underground[^[90]]. And in cases of sudden invasion, especially by enemies who had not the habit of sparing religious houses, the earth may have been resorted to as the safest depository of treasure which it was impossible to transport[^[91]]. William of Malmesbury attributes to the fears of the Britons the accumulations which he says were frequently discovered in his own day[^[92]], and there can be little doubt that this even among the Saxons tended to increase the quantity of gold and silver withdrawn from general use. It may have been partly the conviction of the mischief resulting to society from this habit,—by which gold was made “eldum swá unnýt swá hit ǽror wæs,”—that caused the very frequent and strong expression of blame which we find in Anglosaxon works applied to those who bury treasure, and apparently also to treasure-hunters. It may be that it was thought impious to violate even the heathen sanctuary of the dead; at all events, the popular belief was encouraged that buried treasure was guarded by spells, watched by dragons[^[93]], and loaded with a curse which would cleave for ever to the discoverer: hidden gold is in fact always represented as heathen gold, which, we may readily suppose, could only be purified from its mischievous qualities by passing through the hands of the universal purifiers in such cases, the clergy. Strictly however the king was the proper owner of all treasure-trove, and where the lord of a manor obtained the right to appropriate it to himself, it could only be by grant from the representative of the whole state[^[94]]. Probably the sovereigns were not quite so superstitious as the bulk of their subjects, and certainly they were much better able to defend their own rights than the simple landowners in the rural districts. Still in a very great number of cases they granted away their privilege; probably finding it easier and more profitable to give it up to those who would have used it, without a grant, than to undergo the trouble of detecting and punishing them for taking it unpermitted into their own hands.

PASTUS or CONVIVIUM, Cyninges feorm.—One of the royal duties was to make, in person or by deputy, periodical journeys through the country, progresses, in the course of which the king visited different districts, proclaimed his peace, confirmed the rights and privileges of the freemen or free communities, and heard complaints against the officers of the executive, if such had arisen during the exercise of their functions. This, which on its first occurrence immediately after his election was known in Germany by the name of the Einritt ins land, or Landbereisung[^[95]], was probably connected with the principle of the king’s being the proper guardian of the boundaries: and in the period when the people had lost the power of electing their king at a general meeting, it may have served the purpose of giving them an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the person of their ruler. It is difficult to say when the system of progresses entirely ceased; but there can be no doubt that it subsisted in one form or another till a very late period in England. Under the Anglosaxon law it was by no means a matter of amusement or caprice, but of positive duty, on the part of the king; and Royalty in eyre was a necessary condition of a state of society which would have rejected as a ludicrous tyranny the pretension of any one city to be the central deposit of all the powers and machinery of government. The kings of the Merwingian race in France, who probably retained something of an old priestly character, made these circuits in the celebrated chariot drawn by oxen, which later and ill-informed writers have imagined was a sign of their degradation, instead of their dignity[^[96]]. Of this particular part of the ceremony no trace remains in England, and it is probable that as occasion served, the king either rode on horseback, circumnavigated, or was towed or rowed along the navigable rivers[^[97]]. On these occasions particularly, he had a right to claim harbour and refection for himself and a certain number of his suite in various places, principally religious houses. These claims, which answer in many respects to the procuratio of the ecclesiastical law, were gradually extended so as to include the royal commissioners or Missi, and in many cases became a fixed charge upon the lands, whether the king actually visited them or not[^[98]]. Very many of the charters granted to monasteries record the exemption from them, purchased at a heavy price by prelates, from his avarice or piety[^[99]]. And as the king himself gradually ceased to undertake these distant and fatiguing expeditions, and entrusted to his special messengers the task of seeing and hearing for him, so they in time established a claim to harbourage and reception in the same places. This was extended to all public officers going on the king’s affairs, called Angelcynnes men, Fæsting men, Rǽde fasting, and the like: to all messengers dispatched on the public service from one kingdom to another, while there were several kingdoms; and very probably to those who carried communications from the ealdormen to the king, when one rule comprehended all the several districts. And not only for those who travelled on important affairs of state, and who were very often persons of high birth and distinguished station, but even for certain servants of the royal household were these claims enforced. The huntsmen, stable-keepers and falconers of the court could demand bed and board in the monasteries, where they were often unwelcome guests enough: and this royal right, no doubt frequently used by the ealdorman or sheriff as an engine of oppression, was also bought off at very high prices.

PALFREYS.—Somewhat allied to this was the king’s right to claim the service of horses or palfreys, for the carriage of effects from one royal vill to another, or for the furtherance of his messengers or the public servants[^[100]]. This, which in Hungary still subsists under the name of Vorspann, was a heavy burthen, as it tended to withdraw horses from agricultural labour, at the moment when they were most wanted; and it is to be feared that they were, on this pretext, only too often taken from the harvesting of the bishop or abbot and his tenants, to secure that of the ealdorman. This therefore is frequently compounded for, at a dear rate, under the expression of freedom a parafrithis or paraveredis[^[101]].

VIGILIA.—Another right which the king claimed was that of having proper watch set over him when he came into a district. This, called Vigilia and Custodia in the Latin authorities, is the Heáfodweard, or Headward of the Saxons. It extended also to the guard kept for him on his hunting excursions[^[102]]; and coupled with it was his claim to the assistance of a certain number of men in the hunt itself, either as beaters or managers of the nets in which deer were taken[^[103]].

Sǽweard or coast-guard was also a royal right, performed by the tenants of those landowners whose estates lay contiguous to the sea. The miserable condition to which England was frequently reduced, by the systematic incursions of Scandinavian invaders, rendered this a very important duty, even in spite of the efforts of successive kings who early comprehended the destinies of this nation, and entrusted her defence to maritime armaments. It seems probable that various ports on the coast of Kent and Norfolk may have been particularly charged with this burthen, and that the butsecarlas or shipmasters were held bound to supply craft on emergencies, or even for a regular system of patrolling. In this may have lain the foundation of the privileges enjoyed by the Cinque Ports, and similar coast towns, even before the Norman conquest.

ÆDIFICATIO.—It was further a royal right to claim the aid even of the freemen towards building and fencing the residence or fortress of the king: a certain amount of personal labour was thus demanded of them, in analogy with the trinoda necessitas from which no estate could possibly be relieved. This kind of corvée was no doubt performed by tenants whom the landowners settled on their estates, but really was due from the landowners themselves, except where their estates of bócland had been expressly freed from the royal burthens. Where the royal vill was also a district fortification, not even this general exception relieved the bóclands; fortifications being especially reserved in every charter, as well as building and repair of bridges.

WRECK.—Doubts have been started upon the subject of wreck, which do not appear well founded: it is true that circumstances of suspicion attach to the documents upon which the arguments pro and con were based in the time of Selden; but we are now in possession of further evidence, of a nature to remove all difficulty. I have no hesitation in including Wreck, both jetsam and flotsam, among the Regalia, which were granted not only to ecclesiastical corporations, but even to private landowners. The History of Ramsey[^[104]] states that Eádweard the Confessor, whereby he might show a profitable love to the place, bestowed upon it Ringstede[^[105]] with the adjacent liberty, and all that the sea cast up, which is called Wreck. We have yet the charter by which this grant is supposed to have been made[^[106]], and it is very explicit upon the subject. After conveying lands and other possessions in Huntingdonshire, he proceeds to give several places, tenements or rents, on the coast of Norfolk and the Wash, at Wells, and Branchester, etc. In the last-named place, he adds, “cum omni maris proiectu, quod nos anglicè shipwrec appellamus.” He further adds, “de meo iure quod mihi soli competebat, absque ullius reclamatione vel contradictione ista addidi: inprimis Ringested, cum omnibus ad se pertinentibus, et cum omni maris eiectu, quod shipwrec appellamus,” etc. Now, although the authenticity of this charter, in its present form may be open to question, this fact does not of itself justify us in at once concluding against the privilege claimed under it. On the other hand the recognized right of the king throughout the Norman times, and the total absence of any opposition to its exercise, are primâ facie evidence of its having resided in the crown before the Conquest[^[107]]. Naufragium and Algarum maris are distinctly stated to be rights of the crown, in the laws of Henry the First[^[108]], and we can give examples from other Saxon charters whose genuineness is beyond dispute. The Saxon Chronicle under the date 1029 records a grant made by Cnut to Christchurch, Canterbury, of the haven of Sandwich. The passage is defective, but enough of it remains to prove that it refers to an original document, of which very early copies are still in our possession[^[109]]. In this he says:—

“Concedo eidem aecclesiae ad victum monachorum portum de Sanduuíc et omnes exitus eiusdem aquae, ab utraque parte fluminis cuiuscumque terra sit, a Pipernæsse usque ad Mearcesfleóte, ita ut natante nave in flumine, cum plenum fuerit, quam longius de navi potest securis parvula quam Angli vocant Tapereax super terram proici, ministri aecclesiae Christi rectitudines accipiant, ... Si quid autem in magno mari extra portum, quantum mare plus se retraxerit, et adhuc statura unius hominis tenentis lignum quod Angli nominant spreot, et tendentis ante se quantum potest, monachorum est. Quicquid etiam ex hac parte medietatis maris inventum et delatum ad Sanduuíc fuerit, sive sit vestimentum, sive rete, arma, ferrum, aurum, argentum, medietas monachorum erit, alia pars remanebit inventoribus.”

These words are quite wide enough to carry wreck, although this be not distinctly stated by name. But Eádweard the Confessor furnishes us with still further evidence. In a writ addressed by him to Ælfwold bishop of Sherborne, earl Harold, and Ælfred the sheriff of Dorsetshire, he says[^[110]]: “Eádweard the king greets well Bishop Ælfwold, earl Harold, Ælfred the sheriff and all my thanes in Dorsetshire: and I tell you that Urk my húscarl is to have his strand, over against his own land, freely and well throughout, up from sea, and out on sea, and whatsoever may be driven to his strand, by my full command.”

In this, as in many other cases, the principle seems to be, that that which has no ostensible owner is the property of the state, or of the king as its representative; and hence, in the later construction of the law of wreck, it was necessary that an absolute abandonment should have taken place, before wreck could be claimed. If there were life on board, even a dog, cat, or lower animal, there could legally be no wreck, and this provision of the law has very often led to the perpetration of the most savage murders, as a precaution lest any living creature, by reaching the strand, should defeat the avarice of its barbarous owners. From the little evidence we can now recover, of the Saxon practice, this limitation does not appear to have existed.

MINT.—The coinage has always in every country been numbered among the regalia, and this land appears to make no exception. Although the Witena gemót, in conjunction with the king, exercise a general superintendence over this most important branch of the public affairs, still certain details remain which belong to the king exclusively. The number of moneyers generally in the various localities, the necessity of having one standard over all the realm, the penalties for unfaithful discharge of the moneyer’s duty, or for fraudulently imitating the money of the state, and similar enactments, might be determined by the great council of the realm; but the coin bore the image and superscription of the king, he received a description of seigneuriage upon delivery of the dies, and he changed the coin when it seemed to require renovation or improvement. Thus we learn that Eádgár called in the old, and issued a new coinage, in the year 975, because it had become so clipped as to fall far short of the standard weight[^[111]]: and in the Domesday record, the dues payable to the king on each change of die are noticed[^[112]]. It seems clear that this royal right had been assumed by private individuals, or granted to them, like other royalties, previous to the time of Æðelrǽd: that prince enacted not only that there should be no moneyers beside the kings, but also that their number should be altogether diminished[^[113]]; by which we may suppose that it was his intention to do away with the mints which the bishops had before possessed legally[^[114]] in various towns, and which from the passages cited out of Domesday book, evidently continued to subsist, in spite of the provisions of the Council of Wantage. But if the coins themselves are to be trusted, we may conclude that on some occasions this right had been granted by the crown to others than the clergy. One piece still bears the name and head of Cyneðrýð, probably Offa’s queen[^[115]]; and another with the impress of Hereberht, was probably coined by a Kentish duke. Both these cases, which are in themselves doubtful, are a hundred years earlier than Æðelrǽd’s law, above quoted.

MINES.—Mines and minerals are also among the regalia of a German king, and were so in England. The cases which principally come under our observation in the charters are salt-works and lead-mines; but in a document of the year 689, which however is not totally free from suspicion, Osuuini of Kent grants to Rochester a ploughland at Lyminge in Kent, in which he says there is a mine of iron[^[116]]. In 716, Æðelbald of Mercia granted certain salt-works near the river Salwarpe at Lootwíc in Worcestershire, in exchange however for others to the north of the river[^[117]]. In the same year he granted a hid of land in Saltwych, vico emptorio salis, to Evesham[^[118]]. In 732, Æðelberht of Kent gave abbot Dun a quarter of a ploughland at Lyminge, where there were salt-works, that is evaporating pans[^[119]], and added to it a grant of a hundred loads of wood per annum, necessary to the operation. In 738 Eádberht of Kent includes salt-works in a grant to Rochester[^[120]], and similarly in 812, 814, Coenuulf, in grants to Canterbury[^[121]]. In 833 Ecgberht gave salt-works in Kent, and a hundred and twenty loads of wood from the weald of Andred, to support the fires[^[122]]. Three years later Wigláf of Mercia confirmed the liberties of Hanbury in Worcestershire, with all its possessions, including salt-wells and lead-works[^[123]]. In 863, Æðelberht granted salt-works in Kent to Æðelred, with four waggons going for six weeks into the royal forest[^[124]]. In 938, Æðelstán gave to Taunton three híds of land, and salt-pans[^[125]].

The king in all these cases had possessed a right to levy certain dues at the pans or the pit’s mouth, upon the waggons as they stood, and upon the load being placed in them: these dues were respectively called the wǽnscilling and seámpending, literally wainshilling and loadpenny, and were entirely independent of the rent which might be reserved by the landlord for the use of the ground, whether he were the king or a private person. And immunity from these dues might also be granted by the crown, and was so granted. In 884, Æðelred, duke of Mercia, who acted as a viceroy in that new portion of Ælfred’s kingdom, and exercised therein all the royal rights as fully as any king did in his own territories, gave Æðelwulf five híds at Humbleton, and licence to have six salt-pans, free from all the dues of king, duke or public officer, but still reserving the rights of the landlord[^[126]]. But the same prince, about the same period, when conferring various royalties upon the cathedral of Worcester, retained the king’s dues at the pans in Saltwíc[^[127]].

The peculiar qualities of salt, which make it a necessary of life to man, have always given a special character to the springs and soils which contain it. The pagan Germans considered the salt-springs holy, and waged wars of extermination for their possession[^[128]]; and it is not improbable that they may generally have belonged to the exclusive property of the priesthood. If so, we can readily understand how, upon the introduction of Christianity, they would naturally pass into the hands of the king: and this seems to throw light upon the origin of this royalty, which Eichhorn himself looks upon as difficult of explanation[^[129]]. Many of the royal rights were unquestionably inherited from the pagan priesthood.

MARKET.—The grant of a market, with power to levy tolls and exercise the police therein, was also a royalty, in the period of the consolidated monarchy; and to this head may be added the right to keep a private beam or steelyard, trutina or tróne, yard-measure, and bushel. Of these the charters supply examples. The last-named rights were purchased in 857 by bishop Alhhun of Worcester, from Burgred, who, as king of Mercia, disposed of them to him, with a small plot of land in London. The price paid was sixty shillings, or a pound, to Ceólmund, the owner of the land, a like sum to the king, and an annual rent of twelve shillings to the latter[^[130]]. Thirty-two years later, Ælfred and Æðelred of Mercia gave another small plot in the same city to Werfrið, also bishop of Worcester. He was to have a steelyard, and a measure, both for buying and selling, or for his own private use. And if any of his people dealt in the street or on the bank where the sales took place, the king was to have his toll: but if the bargain was struck within the bishop’s curtis, he was to have the toll[^[131]].

In 904 Eádweard gave a market in Taunton to the bishop of Winchester, with the toll therefrom arising, by the name of “ðæs túnes cýping”[^[132]]: and a few years earlier Æðelred of Mercia granted half the market-dues and fines at Worcester to the bishop of that city[^[133]]. The Frankish emperors possessed and exercised the same right[^[134]]. The strict law of the Anglosaxons, which treated all strangers with harshness, was unfavourable to the chapmen or pedlars, who in thinly-peopled countries are relied upon to bring markets home to every one’s door: and it must be admitted that, where internal communication is yet imperfect, stringent measures are necessary to guard against the disposal of goods improperly obtained. The details of these measures belong to another part of this work, but it is necessary to call attention here to the endeavour on the part of the authorities, to confine all bargaining as much as possible to towns and walled places[^[135]]: the small tolls payable on these occasions to the proper officers were a reasonable sacrifice for the sake of a certificate of fair dealing, and the assured warranty of what the Saxon law calls unlying witnesses. The king, as general conservator of the peace, had this royalty, and, as we have seen, granted it in various towns to those who would be able and willing to perform the duties which it implied.

TOLL.—Closely connected with this are tolls, which, here as well as in Germany, the king claimed in harbours, and upon transport by roads and by navigable streams[^[136]], and which he either remitted altogether in favour of certain favoured persons or empowered them to take; thus, in the first instance, creating for them a commercial monopoly of the greatest value, by enabling them to enter the market on terms of advantage. As early as the eighth century we find Æðelbald of Mercia granting to a monastery in Thanet, exemption from toll throughout his kingdom for one ship of burthen[^[137]], remitting to Milræd, bishop of Worcester, the dues upon two ships, payable in the port of London[^[138]], and to the bishop of Rochester the toll of one ship, whether his own or another’s, in the same port[^[139]]. And the grant to St. Mildðrýð in Thanet was confirmed for himself, and increased by Eádberht of Kent in 761, and extended to London, Fordwíc and Seorre[^[140]]; and if the actual ship to which this privilege was attached should become unseaworthy through age, or perish by shipwreck, a new one was to receive the same favour.

A common privilege in charters of liberties is Tol, but this probably refers rather to a right of taking it upon sales within the jurisdiction, than properly to dues levied on transport. Such however are occasionally mentioned as matter of grant. Eádmund Irensída, conveying lands which had belonged to Sigeferð (whose widow he had married), includes toll upon water-carriage among his rights[^[141]]. Cnut gave the harbour and tolls of Sandwich to Christchurch Canterbury[^[142]], together with a ferry. This right, under Harald Haranfót, was attempted to be interfered with by the abbot of St. Augustine’s, who even at last went so far as to dig a canal in order to divert the channel of trade; but the monks of Christchurch nevertheless succeeded in retaining their property[^[143]]. These examples, although not very numerous, are sufficient to show that the Anglosaxon kings fully possessed the right of levying and granting toll, as well as exemption from its payment; and they are sufficiently confirmed by Domesday and the laws of the kings themselves[^[144]].

FOREST.—It may be doubted whether the right of Forest was at any time carried among the Saxons to the extent which made it so hateful a means of oppression under the Norman kings; but there can be no question that it was one of the royalties. In every part of Germany the bannum Forestae or Forstbann was so[^[145]], and even to this day is as much an object of popular dislike in some districts as it ever was among our forefathers. In countries which depend much upon the immediate produce of the soil for support, hunting is not a mere amusement to be purchased or rented by the rich as a luxury, but a very necessary means of increasing the supply of food; and where coal-mines have not been worked, the forest alone or the turf-heap can furnish the means of securing warmth, as indispensable a necessary of life as bread or flesh: we have seen moreover that it was essential to the comfort of a Saxon family to possess a right of masting cattle in the neighbouring woods.

In the original division of the lands large tracts of forest may have fallen to the king’s share, which he could dispose of as his private property. Much of the folcland also may have been covered with wood, and here and there may have lain sacred groves not included within the limits of any community[^[146]]. It is not unreasonable to suppose that all these were gradually brought under the immediate influence and authority of the king; and that when once the royal power had so far advanced as to reduce the scír-geréfa to the condition of a crown officer, the shire-marks or forests would also become subject to the royal ban[^[147]]. That very considerable forest rights still continued to subsist in the hands of the free men, in their communities, may be admitted, and is evidence of the firm foundation for popular liberty which the old Mark-organization laid. But even in these, the possession was not left totally undisturbed, and the public officers, the king, ealdorman and geréfa appear to have gradually made various usurpations valid.

Over his private forests the king naturally exercised all the rights of absolute ownership; and as his ban ultimately implies this, at least in theory, it becomes difficult to distinguish those which he dealt with as dominus fundi, from those in which he acted iure regali. That he reserved the vert and venison in some of them, and preserved with a strictness worthy of more enlightened ages, is clear from the severe provisions of Cnut’s Constitutiones de Foresta[^[148]]. According to this important document, the forest law was as follows. In every county there were to be four thanes, whose business it was, under the title of Head-foresters, primarii forestae, to hold plea of all offences touching the forest, and having the ban or power of punishing for such offences. Under them were sixteen lesser thanes, but gentlemen, whose business it was to look after the vert and venison; and these had nothing to do with the process in the forest court. To each of the sixteen were assigned two yeomen, who were to keep watch at night over the vert and venison, and do the necessary menial services: but they were freemen, and even employment in the forest gave freedom. All the expenses of these officers were defrayed by the king, and he further supplied the outfit of the several classes: to the head-foresters, yearly, two horses, one saddled, a sword, five lances, a spear, a shield and two hundred shillings of silver: to the second class, one horse, one lance, one shield and sixty shillings: to the yeomen, a lance, a cross-bow and fifteen shillings. All these persons were quit and free of all summonses, county-courts, and military dues: but the two secondary classes owed suit and surface to the court of the primarii (Swánmót), which held plea and gave judgment in their suits: in those of the primarii themselves, the king was sole judge. The court of the Forest was to be held four times a year, and was empowered to administer the triple ordeal, and generally to exercise such a jurisdiction as belonged only to the higher and royal courts. The persons of the head-foresters were guarded by severe penalties; violence offered to them was punished in a free man with loss of liberty, in a serf with loss of the hand; and a second offence entailed the penalty of death.

The offences against the forest-law were various and of very different degrees: the ferae forestae were not nearly so sacred as the ferae regales, and as for the vert, it was of so little regard that the law hardly contemplated it, always excepting the breaking the king’s chace. To hunt a beast of the forest (fera forestae), either voluntarily or intentionally, till it panted, was punished in a free man by a fine of ten shillings: in one of a lower grade[^[149]], by a fine of twenty: in a serf, by a flogging. But if it were a royal beast (fera regalis) which the English call a stag, the punishments were to be respectively, one and two years servitude, and for the serf, outlawry. If they killed it, the free man was to lose scutum libertatis[^[150]], the next man his liberty, and the serf his life. Bishops, abbots and barons were not to be vexed with prosecutions for hunting, except they killed stags: in that case they were liable to such penalty as the king willed. Besides the beasts of the forest, the roebuck, hare and rabbit were protected by fines. Wolves and foxes were neither beasts of the forest nor chace, and might be killed with impunity, but not within the bounds of the forest, as that would be a breaking of the chace; nor was the boar considered a beast of venery. No one was to cut brushwood without permission of the primarius, under a penalty; and he that felled a tree which supplied food for the beasts, was to pay a fine of twenty shillings over and above that for breaking the chace. Every free man might have his own vert and venison on his own lands, but without a chace; and no man of the middle class (mediocris) was to keep greyhounds. A gentleman (liberalis[^[151]]) might, but he must first have the knee-sinew cut in presence of the head-forester, if he lived within ten miles of the forest: if his dogs came within that distance, he was to be fined a shilling a mile: if the dog entered the precincts of the forest, his master was to pay ten shillings. Other kinds of dogs, not considered dangerous, might be kept without mutilation; but if they became mad and by the negligence of their masters went wandering about, heavy fines were incurred. If found within the bounds of the forest, the fine was two hundred shillings: if such a rabid dog bit a beast of the forest, the fine rose to twelve hundred: but if a royal beast was bitten, the crime was of the deepest dye.

Such is the forest legislation of Cnut, and its severity is of itself evidence how much the power of the king had become extended at the commencement of the eleventh century. It is clear that he deals with all forests as having certain paramount rights therein, and it seems probable that this organization was intended to be established all over England. Still it is observable that he gives certain rights of hunting to all his nobles, reserving only the stags to himself, and that he allows every freeman to hunt upon his own property, so that he does not interfere with the royal chaces[^[152]]. We may however infer that at an earlier period the matter was not regarded so strictly. A passage has been already cited[^[153]] where Ælfred implies that a dependent living upon lǽnland could support himself by hunting and fishing, till he got bócland of his own. The bishops possessed the right in their forests—whether proprio iure or by royal grant, I will not venture to decide—as early as the ninth century[^[154]], and still retained it in the tenth[^[155]]. And while the communities were yet free it is absurd to suppose that they allowed any one to interfere with this pursuit, so attractive to every Teuton, so healthy, so calculated to practise his eye and limbs for the sterner duties of warfare, and so useful to recruit a larder not over well stored with various or delicate viands.

However this may have been with the game, it is certain that the most important privileges were those of masting swine, and cutting timber or brushwood in the forests[^[156]]. Grants to this effect are common, and it is plain that a considerable quantity of woods were in the hands of corporations, and even of private individuals, as well as of the Crown. How they came into private hands is not clear; some perhaps by bargain and sale, some by inheritance, some by grant, some no doubt by usurpation. The most powerful markman may at last have contrived to appropriate to himself the ownership of what woodland remained, though he was still compelled to permit the hereditary axe to ring in the forest[^[157]]; and all experience shows that both here and in Germany monasteries were often founded in the bosom of woods, granted for religious purposes, out of what perhaps had once endowed an earlier religion, and which supplied at once building materials, fuel and support for cattle[^[158]]. But even in these, it seems that the king, the duke and the geréfa interfered, claiming a right to pasture certain numbers of their own swine or cattle in them, and to give this privilege to others.

In 845, Æðelwulf gave pasture to Badonoð for his cattle with the king’s beasts, apparently in the pastures of the town of Canterbury[^[159]]. In 855, the same king gave his thane Dun a tenement in Rochester, together with two waggon-loads of wood from the king’s forest, and common in the marsh[^[160]]. In 839 he licensed for Dudda two waggons to the common wood, probably Blean[^[161]]; in 772, Offa granted lands to Abbot Æðelnoð, and added a perpetual right of pasture and masting in the royal wood, together with licence for one goat to go with the royal flock in the forest of Sænling[^[162]]. Numerous other examples are supplied by the charters, which may be classed under the following heads: first, royal forests, as Sænling, Blean, Andred and the like, called silvae regales, and in which the king granted timber, common of mast and pasture or estovers: secondly, forest appertaining to cities and communities (ceasterwara-weald, burhwara-weald, silva communis), in which the king granted commons: thirdly, small woods, appurtenant to and part of estates, but not named, and the enjoyment of which is conveyed in the general terms of the grant, as terram cum communibus utilitatibus, pascuis, pratis, silvis, piscariis, etc.: lastly, private forests or commons of forest specially named as appurtenant to particular estates, or given by favour of the king to the tenant of those estates. To all these heads ample references will be found in the note below[^[163]]. His right to deal at pleasure with the silvae regales requires no particular notice, but the grants of pasture and timber in the forests of cities and communities[^[164]] can only be explained by the assumption of a paramount royalty in the Crown. And that this was exercised in the private forests of monasteries, also appears from exemptions sometimes purchased by them. In 706, Æðelweard of the Hwiccas consented to confine his right of pasture to one herd of swine, and that only in years when mast was abundant, in the forests belonging to Evesham; and he released them from all claims of princes and officers, except this one of his own[^[165]]. Similarly, with regard to timber, Ecgberht in 835 gave an immunity to Abingdon, against the claim of king or prince, to take large or small wood for his buildings from the forests of the monastery[^[166]]. This right of the king to timber for public purposes was maintained and claimed till the time of the rebellion, and was a fertile source of malversation and extortion[^[167]].

STRANGER.—To the king belonged also the protection of all strangers within his realm, and the consequent claim to a portion of their wergyld, and their property in case of death, a droit d’aubaine. This was a natural deduction from the principles of a period and a state of society in which every man’s security was founded upon association either with relatives or guildsmen: and as no one could have these in a foreign mark,—the associations being themselves in intimate connection with the territory,—it is obvious that the public authorities alone could exercise any functions in behalf of the solitary chapman. As general conservator of the peace, these necessarily fell to the king; but the duties and advantages which he thus assumed became in turn matter of grant, and were conferred by him upon other public persons or corporations.

The laws declare the king, earl and bishop to be the relatives and guardians of the stranger[^[168]]; and the charters show that the consequent gains were alienated by him at his pleasure. In 835, Ecgberht gave the inheritance of Gauls and Britons, and half their wergyld, to the monastery at Abingdon[^[169]]. Among these strangers, the Jews were especially mentioned. Anglosaxon history has not indeed recorded any of those abominable outrages upon this long-suffering people which fill the annals of our own and other countries during the middle ages; but there can be no doubt that a false and fanatical view of religion, if not their way of life and their accumulations, must have ever marked them out for persecution. Eichhorn has justly characterized the feeling which prevailed respecting them in all parts of Europe[^[170]], and has remarked to the honour of the Popes that they were the first to preach toleration and command the attempt at conversion. But the utility of the Jewish industry especially in thinly peopled countries, and their importance as gatherers of capital, were ever engaged in a struggle against bigotry; hence the Jews could generally obtain a qualified protection against all but sudden outbreaks of popular fury. As these latter had mostly other deep-seated causes, the ruling classes may sometimes have seen without regret the popular indignation vent itself in a direction which did not immediately endanger themselves: but as a general rule, the Jews enjoyed protection, and were made to pay dearly for it. Both parties were gainers by the arrangement. Among the Saxons this could not be otherwise, for it was impossible for a Jew to be in a hundred or tithing as a freeman; and he would probably have had but little security in the household and following of an ordinary noble. The readiest and most effective plan was to place him, wherever he might be, especially under the king’s mundbyrd. Accordingly the law of Eádweard the Confessor declares the king to be protector of all Jews[^[171]], and this right descended to his Norman successors. Similarly as the clergy relinquished their mǽsceaft or bond of kin, on entering into orders, the king became their natural mundbora[^[172]].

BRIDGE.—It is probable that no one could build a bridge without the royal licence, though I am not aware of any instance in the Saxon times: but I infer this from grants of the Frankish emperors and kings to that effect[^[173]]. It is possible that this may have depended upon the circumstance that toll would be taken by the owner of such a bridge; but we may believe that other reasons concurred with this, and that the bridge originally had something of a holy character, and stood in near relation to the priesthood[^[174]].

CASTLE.—In like manner we may doubt whether the kings did not gradually draw into their own hands the right to have fortified houses or castles, which we find them possessing in the Norman times, and which they extended to their adherents and favourites by special licence. In mediæval history, the fortification of their houses by the inhabitants of a city is the very first result of the establishment of a Communa, commune or free municipality; and the destruction of such fortifications the first care of the victorious count, bishop or king upon his triumph over the outrecuidance of the burghers[^[175]]. The clearest instance of the royal licence to a subject is a grant of Æðelræd and Æðelflæd to the bishop of Worcester, about 880, which recites that they built a burh or fortress for him, in his city, probably to defend his cathedral in those stormy days of Danish ravage[^[176]]. In very early times there may have been fortresses belonging to private persons; this may be inferred from names of places such as Sulmonnes burh, Sulman’s castle; and under the later Anglosaxon kings, various great nobles may have obtained the privilege of fortifying their own residences, as for example we read of Pentecost’s castle and Rodberht’s castle under Eádweard the Confessor[^[177]], an example very likely to have been followed by the powerful chieftains of Godwine’s, Sigeweard’s and Leófríc’s families; but the cases were probably few. Of course fortresses built and garrisoned by the king for the public defence are quite another matter: these were imperial, and to their construction, maintenance and repair, every estate throughout the land, whether of folcland or bócland, was inevitably bound, not even excepting the demesne lands of the king himself or of the ecclesiastical corporations.

ROADS and CANALS.—There is no very clear evidence respecting roads and canals, licence to make which was a subject of grant by the Frankish emperors[^[178]]. But except as regarded the great roads which were especially the king’s, and the cross roads, which were the county’s, it is probable that there was no interference on the part of the state. Every landowner must have had the privilege of making private paths, large or small at his pleasure, by which access could be given to different parts of his own property. We do occasionally find roads mentioned by the name of the owners, and a common service of the settlers on an estate was the liability to assist in making a new road to the farm or mansion[^[179]]. In an instance already cited we have seen an abbot of St. Augustine’s digging a canal with the object of diverting traffic from the haven of Sandwich. It may unhesitatingly be asserted that he claimed this right under his general power as a landlord, and not by any special grant for the purpose: this is evident from the whole tenour of the narrative.

PORTS.—Ports and Havens were, however, essentially royalties, and, as we have seen, could be granted to religious houses. They were naturally in the king’s hand, for this reason: in the early times of which we treat, the stranger is looked upon as an enemy, and every one who does not belong to the association for the maintenance of peace, is primâ facie out of the peace altogether. This applies to sailors, as well as travelling chapmen who wander from mark to mark or county to county; and it applied with peculiar force to England after her coasts became exposed to repeated invasions from the North. Still as England could not subsist without foreign commerce, and early became alive to that great principle of her existence, a system of what we may call navigation laws was established. The bottoms of friendly powers were of course received upon terms of reciprocal favour, but even strange ships had the privilege of safety if they made certain harbours, designated for that purpose. At the treaty of Andover, in 994, Æðelræd and his witan agreed, that every merchant-ship that voluntarily came into port should be in the peace; and even if it were driven into port (whether by force or by stress of weather is not specified), and there were a friðburh, asylum, or building in the peace, in which the men took refuge, they and their ship and cargo should enjoy the peace[^[180]]. It is hardly to be doubted that the king had the power of declaring what ports should be gefriðod or in the peace; and as this privilege would necessarily draw many advantages to any harbour that possessed it, we can reasonably conclude that it was made a source of profit, both by the king and those to whom he might think fit to grant it.

WARDSHIP and MARRIAGE.—Wardship and Marriage appear to have been royalties; we must however believe them to have been confined to the children and widows of the thanes or comites, and to be a deduction from the principles of the Comitatus itself.

In the secular law of Cnut there is a series of provisions, extending from the 70th to the 75th clause, which can only be looked upon in the light of alleviations, and which in the 70th clause the king himself declares so to be. From the nature of the relief thus afforded, we may infer that the royal officers had exercised their powers in a manner oppressive to the subject. Accordingly the king and his witan proceed to regulate the voluntary nature of the feormfultum, the legal amount of heriot, the descent of property in the case of intestacy, and the kings’s guardianship of the same; they protect the widow and heirs against vexatious suits, by providing that they shall not be sued, if the lord and father had remained undisturbed, and lastly they regulate what appear to me to be the rights of wardship and marriage.

“And let every widow remain for a twelvemonth without a husband; then let her do her pleasure. But if within the year she choose a husband, let her forfeit the morgengyfu and all the property she had through her first husband, and let her nearest kin take the land and property she had before. And let the husband be liable in his wer to the king, or to whomsoever he may have granted it. And even if she have been taken by force, let her forfeit her possessions, unless she be willing to go home again from the man, and never become his again.... And let no one compel either woman or maiden to him whom she herself mislikes, nor for money sell her, unless the suitor will give something of his own good will[^[181]].”

This of itself does not imply the royal right of marriage; but it becomes much more significant, when we learn that estates had been given to influential nobles, for their intercession with the king, on behalf of profitable alliances: then, the circumstances, combined together, seem to imply that Cnut desired to reform the miserable condition in which he found England, in the hope, no doubt, by such reform to consolidate his own power. The evidence of what may almost be called purchasing a marriage—though not in the truly gross and vulgar sense of such purchases among those whom writers of romances represent as the chivalrous Normans,—is supplied by the monk of Ramsey: the instance dates from the middle of the tenth century. In mentioning an estate of five hides at Burwell, the chronicler adds: “This is the estate which—as we find in the very ancient English charters referring to it—a certain man named Eádwine, the son of Othulf, had in old times granted to archbishop Oda, as a reward for his pains and trouble in bringing king Eádred to consent, that Eádwine might have leave to marry the daughter of a certain Ulf, whom he desired[^[182]].” This Ulf does not, I believe, occur among the signitaries to any of the charters, unless the name represent some one of the many Wulfgárs or Wulfláf’s of the time: but still we must suppose him to have been a person of consideration, since a large estate was given for his daughter’s marriage. In the absence of all details we cannot form any clear decision as to the royal right in this respect, though the balance of probability seems to me to incline to the view that the king had some right of wardship and marriage over the children and widows of his own thanes or sócmen. This seems to lie in the very nature of their relative position. With the widow or child of a free man, it is of course not to be imagined that the king could interfere; but in the time of Eádred there were probably not many free men whose wealth rendered interference worth the trouble.

HEREGEATWE. HERIOT.—The general nature of Heriot has been explained in the First Book: it was there shown that it arose from the theory of the comes having been originally armed by the king, to whom upon his death the arms reverted: and in imitation of this, Best-head or Melius catallum, distinguished in our law as Heriot-custom, was shown to have arisen. But whatever may have been its origin or early amount,—and its earliest amount was no doubt unsettled, depending upon the will of the chief who might take all or some of his thanes’ chattels at his pleasure,—in process of time it became assessed at a fixed amount, according to the rank of the person from whose estate it was paid. The law of Cnut[^[183]] which determined this amount was probably only a re-enactment, or confirmation of an older custom, and appears to have been introduced to put an end to disputes upon the subject; it declares as follows:—

“Let the heriots be as fits the degree. An earl’s as belongs to an earl’s rank, viz. eight horses, four saddled, four unsaddled, four helmets, four coats-of-mail, eight spears, eight shields, four swords and two hundred mancuses of gold. From a king’s thane, of those who are nearest to him, four horses, two saddled, two unsaddled; two swords, four spears, four shields, a helmet, a coat-of-mail and fifty mancuses of gold. From a medial thane, a horse equipped, and his arms; or his healsfang in Wessex, and in Mercia and Eastanglia two pounds. Among the Danes, the heriot of a king’s thane who has his sócn[^[184]] is four pounds: if he stand in nearer relation to the king, two horses, one equipped, a sword, two spears, two shields and fifty mancuses of gold. And from a thane of the lower order, two pounds.”

The following are examples of heriots paid both before and after the time of Cnut.

The estate of Ðeódrǽd bishop of London and Elmham, about 940, paid, four horses the best he had, two swords the best he had, four shields, four spears, two hundred marks of red gold, two silver cups, and his lands at Anceswyrð, Illingtún and Earmingtún[^[185]].

In 946-956, the estate of Æðelwald the ealdorman paid four horses, four spears, four swords, four shields, two rings each worth one hundred and twenty mancuses, two rings each worth eighty mancuses (in all four hundred mancuses) and two silver vessels[^[186]].

About 958, Ælfgár gave the king two swords with belts, three steeds, three shields, three spears, and two rings each worth fifty mancuses of gold[^[187]].

The heriot of Beorhtríc, about 962, was, four horses, two equipped, two swords and belts, a ring worth eighty mancuses of gold, a sword of the same value, two falcons, and all his stag-hounds[^[188]].

The great duke Ælfheáh of Hampshire, 965-971, gave to Eádgár, who had married his cousin Ælfðrýð, duke Ordgár’s daughter, the following property: it is hard to say how much of it was heriot: six horses with their trappings, six swords, six spears, six shields, one sword worth eighty mancuses of gold, one dish of three pounds, one cup of three pounds, three hundred mancuses of gold, one hundred and twenty hides of land at Wyrð, and his estates at Cóchám, Dæchám, Ceóleswyrð, Incgeneshám, Æglesbyrig and Wendofra[^[189]].

Æðelríc, in 997, paid two horses, one sword and belt, two shields, two spears, and sixty marks of gold[^[190]].

Archbishop Ælfríc, 996-1006, devised to the king, as his heriot, sixty helmets, sixty coats-of-mail, and his best ship with all her tackle and stores[^[191]].

Ælfhelm paid four horses, two equipped, four shields, four spears, two swords, and one hundred mancuses of gold[^[192]].

Wulfsige paid two horses, one helmet, one coat-of-mail, one sword, one spear twined with gold[^[193]].

The majority of these cases belong to periods previous to Cnut’s accession, but they seem to imply an assessment very similar to his own. And in this view of the case, where the payment had become a settled amount due from persons of a particular rank, it became possible for women to be charged with it, which we accordingly find. In 1046 Wulfgýð commences her will by desiring that her right heriot may be paid to the king[^[194]]: Æðelgyfu in 945 gave the king thirty mancuses of gold, two horses and all her dogs[^[195]]: Ælflǽd left him by will her lands at Lamburnan, Ceólsige and Readingan, four rings worth two hundred mancuses of gold, four palls, four cups, four drinking-horns and four horses[^[196]]: and lastly queen Ælfgyfu in 1012 left the king, six horses, six shields, six spears, one cup, two rings worth one hundred and twenty mancuses each, and various lands[^[197]]. Taken in connection with the case of Wulfgýð, these bequests appear very like heriots. The heriots mentioned in Domesday agree with the details given above, and serve to show that the right had undergone no material alteration till the time of the Confessor[^[198]]. That the Best-head or Melius catallum was paid to the king by his unfree tenants, as well as to other lords, is probable, but we have no instance of it[^[199]]. By the law of Cnut, the widow was to have a reasonable time for payment of the heriot, and it was altogether remitted to the family of him who fell bravely fighting in the field before the presence of his lord.

It appears from what has been said in this chapter that the kings were provided very sufficiently with the means of maintaining their dignity: the benefactions which they were enabled to make out of the folcland relieved their private estates from the burthen of supporting the thanes, clerical and lay, who flocked to their service. Still there must have been a constant drain upon their possessions; and many of the regalia became lost to the crown by successive alienations. It is true that they were generally purchased at a high price, but in this case the king who sold them was the only gainer: he secured considerable sums for himself, but he impoverished all his successors to a much greater amount. The loans for which we occasionally find him indebted to his prelates, show how completely at times the crown had been pillaged, as well as who were the principal sharers in the plunder. The attempt to draw in lands and privileges which had once been alienated, was questionable in policy and harsh to the innocent holders; but it does not always seem to have been viewed impartially even by those least concerned; we may however now express our conviction that in many cases the alienations themselves had been made improperly and without sufficient authority; and, that if it was hard upon an abbot or bishop to lose what his predecessor had gained, it was very hard upon a king to be without what his predecessor had unjustly and often illegally squandered.

[27]. The names by which the King is commonly known among most of the Germanic nations are indicative of his position. From Þeód, the people, he is called þeóden: from his high birth (cyne nobilis, and cyn genus, i.e. generosus a genere), he is called Cyning: from Dryht, the troop of comites or household retainers, he is Dryhten: and as head of the first household in the land, he is emphatically Hláford: his consort is seó Hlǽfdige, the Lady. His poetical and mythical names need not be investigated on this occasion.

[28]. Be Wergyldum, Norðleóda laga, § 1. Myrcna laga, § 1. Thorpe, i. 186, 190: “Se wer gebirað magum ⁊ seó cynebót ðám leódum.”

[29]. Æðelred about 980, gives the following reasons for a grant made by him to Abingdon. During the lifetime of Eádgar, this prince had given to the monastery certain estates belonging to the appanage of the princes of the blood, “terras ad regios pertinentes filios:” these, on Eádgar’s death and Eádweard’s accession, the Witena gemót very properly claimed and obtained, handing them over to Æðelred, then prince royal: “quae statim terrae iuxta decretum et praeceptionem cunctorum optimatum de praefato sancto coenobio violenter abstractae, meaeqae ditioni, hisdem praecipientibus, sunt subactae: quam rem si iuste aut iniuste fecerint, ipsi sciant.” All the crown lands thus fell to Æðelred, he having no children at his brother Eádweard’s death: “et regalium simul, et ad regios filios pertinentium, terrarum suscepi dominium.” Having now scruples of conscience about interfering with his father’s charitable intentions, he gave the monastery an equivalent out of his own private property,—“ex mea propria haereditate.” Cod. Dipl. No. 3312.

[30]. Germ. xv.

[31]. See Domesday, passim. Cnut commanded to put an end to these compulsory demands: no man was to be compelled to give his reeves anything towards the king’s feormfultum, against his will, under a heavy penalty, but the king was to be provided for out of the royal property. Cnut, § 70. Thorpe, i. 412. If Phillips is right in supposing the Fóster of Ini’s law (§70. Thorpe, i. 146) to be this burthen, heavy charges lay upon the land in the eighth century. Angels. Recht. p. 87. But I doubt the application in this particular case. See also, Anon. Vita Hludov. Imp. § 7; Pertz, ii. 610, 611; Annal. Laurish. 753; Ann. Bertin. 837; Pertz, i. 116, 430, and Hincmar. Inst. Carol. ibid. ii. 214. Aids and benevolences have acquired a notoriety in English history which will not be forgotten while England survives: but the prerogative lawyers had ancient prescription to back them. On the whole subject see Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 245. Eichhorn, § 171. vol. i. p. 730 seq.

[32]. Æðelb. i. § 2. This enactment has been supposed to be the foundation of one of those privileges of Parliament, which we have seen solemnly discussed on a late occasion.

[33]. Æðelb. i. § 3.

[34]. Ibid. § 4, 9.

[35]. Ibid. § 8, 15.

[36]. Ibid. § 5, 13.

[37]. Ibid. § 10, 14, 16.

[38]. Æðelb. § 7, 21.

[39]. Wihtr. § 16. The position and privileges of the clergy at this very early period, and especially in Kent, were very exalted. Æðelberht places the king only on the footing of a priest, in respect to his stolen property. Æðelb. § 1. But this grave error was remedied as society became better consolidated, although to the very last the clergy were left in possession of far too much secular power.

[40]. Ini, § 6. Ælf. § 7.

[41]. Ini, § 45. Ælfr. § 40.

[42]. Ælfr. § 3. Cnut, ii. § 59.

[43]. Æðelst. iii. § 6; iv. § 4; v. § 4.

[44]. Ælfr. § 2.

[45]. Ini, § 19.

[46]. Ini, § 33.

[47]. Ibid. § 76.

[48]. Ælf. § 4. Cnut, ii. § 58.

[49]. “Imprimis ut omnes iurent in nomine Domini, pro quo sanctum illud sanctum est, fidelitatem Eádmundo regi, sicut homo debet esse fidelis domino suo, sine omni controversia et seditione, in manifesto, in occulto, in amando quod amabit, nolendo quod nolet.” Eádm. iii. § 1. Thorpe, i. 252. “And it is our will, that every man above twelve years of age, make oath that he will neither be a thief, nor cognizant of theft.” Cnut, ii. § 21. Thorpe, i. 388. “Omnis enim duodecim annos habens et ultra, in alicuius frithborgo esse debet et in decenna; sacramentumque regi et hæredibus suis facere fidelitatis, et quod nec latro erit, nec latrocinio consentiet.” Fleta, lib. i. cap. 27. § 4. This was the basis upon which the associations of freemen among the Anglosaxons entered into their alliances, offensive and defensive, with their kings. Charlemagne caused an oath to be taken to himself as emperor, by all his subjects above twelve years old. Dönniges, p. 3. The Hyldáð or oath of fealty is given in the Anc. Laws, i. 178. The dependent engages to love all the lord loves, and shun all that he shuns: these are the technical terms throughout Europe. The king himself took a corresponding oath to his people. We still have the words of that which was administered by Dúnstán to Æðelred at Kingston.

It is worth while to compare with this the coronation oath of king Eirek Magnusson, of Norway, which we learn from the following valuable document of July 25th, 1280.

“Pateat universis tam clericis quam laicis per regnum Norwegie constitutis presens scriptum visuris vel audituris quod anno domini m^o. cc^o. lxxx^o. in festo sancti Suithuni Bergio in ecclesia cathedrali magnificus princeps et nobilis dominus . Eiricus dei gracia rex Norwegie illustris filius domini Magni quondam regis coram reverendo patre et venerabili domino Johanne secundo divina miseracione . Nidrosiensi archiepiscopo qui eum coronando in regem coronam capiti eius inposuit . ipsiusque suffraganeis et multis clericis et laicis qui presentes fuerant . tactis ewangeliis iuramentum prestitit in hunc modum . Profiteor et promitto coram deo et sanctis eius a modo pacem et iusticiam ecclesie dei . populoque mihi subiecto observare . pontificibus et clero . prout teneor . condignum honorem exhibere . secundum discrecionem mihi a deo datam . atque ea que a regibus ecclesiis collata ac reddita sunt . sicut compositum est inter ecclesiam et regnum . inviolabiliter conservare . malasque leges et consuetudines perversas precipue contra ecclesiasticam libertatem facientes abolere et bonas condere prout de concilio fidelium nostrorum melius invenire poterimus . þæt jatta ek gudi ok hans helgum mannum . at ek skal vardvæita frid ok rettyndi hæilagre kirkiu ok þui folki sem ek er overðugr ivir skipaðr . Byscopum ok lærdom mannum skal ek væita vidrkvæmelega soemd efter þui sem ek er skyldugr . ok gud giæfr mer skynsemd til . ok þa luti halda obrigðilega . sem af konunggum ero kirkiunni gefner . ok aftr fegner sua sem samþykt er millum kirkiunnar ok rikissens . Rong log ok illar siðueniur einkanlega þær . sem mote ero hæilagrar kirkiu frælsi af taka ok betr skipa, eftir þui sem framazt faam ver raad til af varoni tryggastu mannum . Cum igitur ante coronacionem dicti regis dubitacio fuerit . de regis iuramento . volens predictus pater ne huiusmodi dubitacio rediviva foret in posterum precavere. utile quippe etenim est eam rem cognitam esse que ignorata vel dubia possit occasionem litigii ministrare . iuramentum seu professionem factam a domino rege . ad perpetuam memoriam . presentibus literis duxit inserendam . et ad pleniorem rei evidenciam sigillum suum apposuit una cum sigillis venerabilium partum . domini Andree Osloensis . Jorundi Holensis . Erlendi Ferensis . Arnonis Skalotensis . Arnonis Stawangrensis . Nerue Bergensis . Thorfinni Hamarensis suffraganeorum Nidrosiensis ecclesie . Actum viii. Kal. Augusti loco et anno supradictis.”—Diplomatarium Norwegicum, No. 69. p. 62.

It is very uncertain at what time the custom of coronation, and unction, by the hands of the clergy, commenced. The usurpation which Pipin ventured and Pope Zachary lent himself to, which Charlemagne repeated and Pope Leo confirmed, may have acted as a valuable precedent, especially as the power of the King was sufficient to justify the claim of the Pope. Thirty years later (A.D. 787), the English bishops put forward the somewhat bold claim to be, with the seniores populi, electors of the king: “Duodecimo sermone sanximus; Ut in ordinatione regum nullus permittat pravorum praevalere assensum; sed legitime reges a sacerdotibus et senioribus populi eligantur, et non de adulterio vel incoestu procreati; quia sicut nostris temporibus ad sacerdotium, secundum Canones, adulter pervenire non potest, sic nec Christus domini esse valet, et rex totius regni, et haeres patriae, qui ex legitimo non fuerit connubio generatus.” Conc. Calcuth. Legat. Spelm. p. 296. No doubt from their position in the Witena gemót, and the authority which they derived from their birth as well as station, they always played an important part in the elections of kings, but not quite so leading a part in the eighth century as they here attempt to claim. The Diplomatarium Norwegicum supplies an interesting illustration of the above-cited canon, in a dispensation issued by Pope Innocent IV. (A.D. 1246) to Haakon Haakonson, from the disqualification of illegitimate birth: “Cum itaque clare memorie Haquinus, Norwegie rex pater tuus, te, prout accepimus, solutus susceperit de soluta, nos tuam celsitudinem speciali benevolentia prosequentes, ut huiusmodi non obstante defectu ad regalis solii dignitatem et omnes actus legitimos admittaris, nec non quod heredes tui legitimi tibi in dominio et honore succedant, fratrum nostrorum communicato consilio, tecum auctoritate apostolica dispensamus.” No. 38, p. 30. This was not however considered a valid ground of objection among the Anglosaxons, if the personal qualities of the prince were such as to recommend him. From the words used by William of Malmesbury we might infer that as late as the time of Æðelstán, the functions of the bishops at the coronation were confined to anathematizing those who would not be obedient subjects, but that the nobles performed the actual coronation: he cites the following lines from an earlier author, and one apparently contemporaneous with Æðelstán himself:—

“Tunc iuvenis nomen regni clamatur in omen,

Ut fausto patrias titulo moderetur habenas:

Conveniunt proceres et componunt diadema,

Pontifices pariter dant infidis anathema.”

De Gest. ii. § 133.

That Harold crowned himself is an old story; but it is very certain that whatever he did, was done with the full consent of the Witena gemót.

[50]. See hereafter the several chapters [Ealdorman], [Geréfa] and [Witena gemót].

[51]. The principal cases will be found in the following passages of the Laws: Eádw. § 1. Æðelst. i. § 20, 22, 26; iii. § 7; iv. §1, 7; v. § 11. Eádm. iii. § 2, 6, 7. Eádg. i. § 4; ii. § 7, etc.

[52]. Hloðh. § 9, 11, 12, 13, 14. Ælf. § 37. Æðelst. i. § 1; iii. § 4; v. § 5.

[53]. Æðelst. iii. § 3; iv. § 1.

[54]. Eád. Gúð. § 13. Eádm. ii. § 1, 6, 7.

[55]. Eád. Conf. § 12. Cross roads and small streams are not in the king’s peace, but that of the county.

[56]. This peace was called the King’s Handsell, “cyninges handsealde gríð.” The extent to which his peace extended around his dwelling, that is, within the verge of the court, has been noticed in the fourth chapter of the First Book. The right subsisted throughout the Middle Ages and yet subsists, though differently motived and measured. The king’s handsealde gríð was by Æðelred’s law made bótless, that is, had no settled compensation. Æðelr. iii. § 1.

[57]. Eádw. Conf. § 13.

[58]. “Æðelingawudu, Colmanora and Geátescumbe belong to these twenty hides, which I myself, now rode, now rowed, and widely divided off, for myself, my predecessors, and those that shall come after me, for an eternal separation, before God and the world.” Eádred. an. 955. Cod. Dipl. No. 1171. “Now I greet well my relative Mygod of Wallingford, and command thee in my stead [on mínre stede] to ride round the land to the saint’s hand.” Eádw. Conf., Cod. Dipl. No. 862. The force of the word berídan is very difficult to convey in words, but still perfectly obvious. Another difficulty arises from the word stede, which is properly masculine, but here given as a feminine. I think it impossible that it should mean stéde, a mare (i. e. on my mare), and prefer the supposition either that stede had changed its gender, or that the copy of the charter is an incorrect one.

[59]. There are cases nevertheless which seem to favour the supposition that a similar power was ultimately lodged in the king and, at least occasionally, exercised.

[60]. I may here say once for all, that I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of Asser’s Annals, or to attribute them to any other period than the one at which they were professedly composed.

[61]. Ælfred himself mentions the Kentish, Mercian and Westsaxon laws. The Danes had another. Peculiarities of the Northangle and Southangle laws are also noticed.

[62]. By the contract entered into with his people: but when? when they first elected him? or when they restored him to his throne?

[63]. “And let him that applies to the king before he has prayed for justice as often as it behoveth him [that is, made the legal number of formal applications to the shiremoot, etc.] pay the same fine as the other should had he denied him justice.” Æðelst. i. 1. § 3. Thorpe, i. 200. Eádgar, ii. § 2. Thorpe, i. 266. “And let no one apply to the king, unless he cannot get justice within his hundred: but let the hundred-gemót be duly applied to, according to right, under penalty of the wíte, or fine.” Cnut, ii. § 17. Thorpe, i. 384 seq. Similarly Will. Conq. i. § 43. Thorpe, i. 485. It is impossible to believe that Ælfred possessed a right which later and much more powerful kings did not.

[64]. “And let no one have sócn over a king’s thane save the king himself.” Æðelr. iii. § 11. Thorpe, i. 296.

[65]. If the ealdorman connive at theft, or at the escape of a thief, he is to forfeit his office. Ini, § 36. Thorpe, i. 124. If a geréfa do so, he shall forfeit all he hath. Æðelst. i. § 3. If he will not put the law in execution, he shall lose his office. Æðelst. i. 26; v. § 11. Eádg. ii. § 3. Thorpe, i. 200, 212, 240, 266.

[66]. There is an instance where the parties to a suit were similarly[similarly] circumstanced. The matter was brought into the king’s þeningmanna gemót in London, and there decided in favour of the plaintiff, a bishop. But the defendant was not satisfied, and carried the cause to the shire, who at once claimed jurisdiction and exercised it too, coming to a decision diametrically opposite to that of the þeningmen or ministri regii. It seems to have been a dirty business on the part of the bishop of Rochester, and the freemen of Kent so treated it, in defiance of the King’s Court. Cod. Dipl. No. 1258. The document is so important, that it appears desirable to give it at full length. “Thus were the lands at Bromley and Fawkham adjudged to king Eádgár in London, through the charters of Snodland, which the priests stole from the bishop of Rochester and secretly sold for money to Ælfric the son of Æscwyn: and the same Æscwyn, Ælfric’s mother, had previously granted them thither. Now when the bishop found the books were stolen he made earnest demand for them. Meanwhile Ælfric died, and he (the bishop) afterwards sued the widow so long that in the king’s thanes-court the stolen books of Snodland were adjudged to him, and damages for the theft, thereto; that was in London, and there were present Eádgár the king, archbishop Dúnstán, bishop Æðelwold, bishop Ælfstán and the other Ælfstán, Ælfhere the ealdorman and many of the king’s witan: then they adjudged the books to the bishop for his cathedral: so all the widow’s property stood in the king’s hand. Then would Wulfstán the geréfa seize the property to the king’s hand, both Bromley and Fawkham; but the widow sought the holy place and the bishop, and surrendered to the king the charter of Bromley and Fawkham: and the bishop bought the charters and the land of the king at Godshill, for fifty mancuses of gold, and a hundred and thirty pounds, through intercession and interest: afterwards the bishop permitted the widow the usufruct of the land. During this time the king died; and then Bryhtríc the widow’s relative began, and compelled her, so that they took violent possession of the land [brúcon ðára landa on reáfláce]. And they sought Eádwine the ealdorman, who was God’s adversary, and the folk, and compelled the bishop to restore the books on peril of all his property: he was not allowed to enjoy his rights in any one of the three things which had been given him in pledge by all the leódscipe, neither his plea, his succession, nor his ownership. This is the witness of the purchase: Eádgár the king, Dunstan the archbishop, Oswald the archbishop, bishop Æðelwold, bishop Æðelgar, bishop Æscwig, bishop Ælfstán, the other bishop Ælfstán, bishop Sideman, Ælfðrýð the king’s mother, Osgar the abbot, Ælfhere the ealdorman, Wulfstan of Delham, Ælfric of Epsom, and the leading people [dúgúð folces] of West Kent, where the land and lathe lie.” Here I take it the þeningmen or servientes regis and the leódscipe (leudes) are identical and opposed to the Folc who under “God’s adversary” Eádwine made the bishop disgorge his plunder. We see who they were; Dunstan and various bishops, ealdorman Ælfhere and several of the king’s witan. This is the only instance I have been able to discover of anything approaching to a curia regis apart from the great Witena gemót. There are, no doubt, several cases where the king appears to have been applied to in the first instance, by one of the parties; but in all of them trial subsequently was had before the shiremoot. It is natural that agreements should have been made by consent, before the king as arbitrator, and these were probably frequent among his intimate councillors, friends and relatives: but they were not trials, nor did they settle the litigation as a judgement of the courts would have done. Such arbitrements were also made by the ealdorman, who like the king received presents for his good offices. The advantage gained was this; both parties were satisfied, without the danger of trying the suit, which entailed very heavy penalties on the loser, amounting sometimes to total forfeiture. The disadvantage was that there was no ge-endodu spræc or finished plea, and consequently the award was sometimes violated, when either party thought this could be done with impunity.

[67]. Excepting a very indefinite expression in the Law of Henry the First, § 13.

[68]. Cod. Dipl. No. 693. Cwichelmeshlǽw, now Cuckamsley or Cuckamslow Hills, in Berkshire; these run east and west and probably cut off the north-western portion of the county, forming the watershed from which the Ock and Lambourn descend on opposite sides. The exact spot of the gemót was probably near a mound which is now called Scutchamfly Barrow, and which is very plainly marked in the Ordnance Map, nearly due north of West Ilsey.

[69]. The lands are Bradfield, Hagborne and Datchet, in Berks and Bucks. Wulfamere I am unable to identify. At all events, had the matter been cognizable in a superior court of the king’s, Leófwine could not have carried his point of having it brought to trial before the shiremoot in Berkshire, which he clearly did against the king’s wish.

[70]. Cod. Dipl. No. 641.

[71]. “If a man fight or draw weapon in the king’s hall and be taken in the act, he shall lie at the king’s mercy, to slay or pardon him.” Ælf. § 7. Ini, § 6. Thorpe, i. 66, 106. “The ealdorman who connives at theft shall forfeit his office, unless the king pardon him.”[him.”] Ini, § 36. Thorpe, i. 124. See also Æðelst. v. 1. § 4, 5, Eádm. § 6. Eádg. ii. § 7. Æðelr. iii. § 16; vii. § 9. Thorpe, i. 230, 250, 268, 298, 330.

[72]. Ælf. § 4. Thorpe, i. 62.

[73]. Ini, § 6. Thorpe, i. 106.

[74]. Æðelst. i. § 3. Thorpe, i. 200.

[75]. Æðelst. i. § 20. Thorpe, i. 210; see also § 26. Thorpe, i. 214. Æðelst. iii. § 3. Thorpe, i. 218; iv. § 1; v. § 1, 5. Eádm. ii. § 1, 6. Eádg. Hund. § 2, 3. Eádg. i. § 4. Æðelr. v. § 28, 29; vi. § 35, 37: vii. § 9; ix. § 42. Cnut, ii. § 13, 58, 67, 78, 84. Thorpe, i. 220, 228, 230, 248, 250, 258, 264, 310, 312, 324, 330, 350, 382, 408, 410, 420, 422.

[76]. Cod. Dipl. No. 328. “Eánwulf the reeve ... took all he owned at Tisbury ... and the chattels were adjudged to the king, because he was the king’s man: and Ordláf took to his own land, because it was his lǽn that he sat upon: that he could not forfeit.”[forfeit.”]

[77]. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 601, 1090.

[78]. Cod. Dipl. No. 1295. “Quae portio terrae cuiusdam foeminae fornicaria praevaricatione mihimet vulgari subacta est traditione.” Æðelred, an. 1002.

[79]. Cod. Dipl. No. 1258. “Ða stód ðáre wydewan áre on ðæs cynges handa: ðá wolde Wulfstán se geréfa niman ða áre tó ðæs cynges handa, Brómleáh ⁊ Fealcnahám.”

[80]. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 579, 1112. “Quo mortuo praedicta mulier Ælfgyfu alio copulata est marito, Wulfgat vocabulo; qui ambo crimine pessimo iuste ab omni incusati sunt populo, causa suae machinationis propriae, de qua modo non est dicendum per singula, propter quam vero machinationem quae iniuste adquisierunt iuste perdiderunt.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1305. The exile of Wulfgeat is mentioned by the Chronicle and Florence, an. 1006. Again, “Nam quidam minister Wulfget vulgari relatu nomine praefatam terram aliquando possederat, sed quia inimicis regis se in insidiis socium applicavit, et in facinore inficiendo etiam legis satisfactio ei defecit, ideo haereditatis suberam penitus amisit, et ex ea praedictus episcopus praescriptam villulam, me concedente, suscepit.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1310. “Has terrarum portiones Ælfríc cognomento Puer a quadam vidua Eádfléd appellata violenter abstraxit, ac deinde cum in ducatu suo contra me et contra omnem gentem meam reus existeret, et hae quas praenominavi portiones et universae quas possederat terrarum possessiones meae subactae sunt ditioni, quando ad synodale conciliabulum ad Cyrneceastre universi optimates mei simul in unum convenerunt, et eundem Ælfricum maiestatis reum de hac patria profugum expulerunt, et universa ab illo possessa michi iure possidenda omnes unanimo consensu decreverunt.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1312. “Emit quoque praedictus vir Æðelmarus a me, cum triginta libris, duodecim mansiones de villulis quas matrona quaedam nomine Leoflǽd suis perdidit ineptiis et amisit.” Cod. Dipl. No. 714. “Hoc denique rus cuiusdam possessoris Leofricus onomate quondam et etiam nostris diebus paternae haereditatis hire fuerat, sed ipse impie vivendo, hoc est rebellando meis militibus in mea expeditione, ac rapinis insuetis et adulteriis multisque aliis nefariis sceleribus semet ipsum condempn avit[sceleribus semet ipsum condempn avit] simul et possessiones.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1307. “Erat autem eadem villa cuidam matronae, nomine Æðelflǽde, derelicta a viro suo, obeunte illo, quae etiam habebat germanum quendam, vocabulo Leófsinum, quem de satrapis nomine tuli, ad celsioris dignitatis dignum duxi promovere, ducem constituendo, scilicet, eum, unde humiliari magis debuerat, sicut dicitur, ‘Principem te constituerunt, noli extolli,’ et caetera. Sed ipse hoc oblitus, cernens se in culmine maioris status sub rogatu famulari sibi pestilentes spiritus promisit, superbiae scilicet et audaciae, quibus nichilominus ipse se dedidit in tantum, ut floccipenderet quin offensione multimoda me multoties graviter offenderet; nam praefectum meum Æficum, quem primatem inter primates meos taxavi, non cunctatus in propria domo eius eo inscio perimere, quod nefarium et peregrinum opus est apud christianos et gentiles. Peracto itaque scelere ab eo, inii consilium cum sapientibus regni mei petens, ut quid fieri placuisset de illo decernerent; placuitque in commune nobis eum exulare et extorrem a nobis fieri cum complicibus suis: statuimus etiam inviolatum foedus inter nos, quod qui praesumpsisset infringere, exhaereditari se sciret omnibus habitis, hoc est, ut nemo nostrum aliquid humanitatis vel commoditatis ei sumministraret. Hanc optionis electionem posthabitam nichili habuit soror eius Æðelflǽd omnia quae possibilitatis eius erant, et utilitatis fratris omnibus exercitiis studuit explere, et hac de causa aliarumque quamplurimarum exhaeredem se fecit omnibus.” Cod. Dipl. No. 719.

The murder of Æfic is mentioned in the Chronicle, an. 1002, where he is called heáhgeréfa.

[81]. Cod. Dipl. No. 1035. But not if he had legal heirs. See Cnut, ii. § 71. Thorpe, i. 412. In this case the king could claim only the Heriot, a custom retained even by the Normans. “Item si liber homo intestatus decesserit, et subito, dominus suus nihil se intromittet de bonis suis, nisi tantum de hoc quod ad ipsum pertinuerit, scilicet quod habeat suum Heriettum.” Fleta, ii. cap. 57, § 10.

[82]. Cod. Dipl. No. 1078.

[83]. Hist. Eliens. i. 1. “Sicque postea per destitutionem, regiae sorti, sive fisco, idem locus additus est.” See also vol. i. p. 302, note 2.

[84]. Cnut, ii. § 12. Thorpe, i. 382.

[85]. Cnut, ii. § 14. Thorpe, i. 384.

[86]. Cnut, ii. § 15. Thorpe, i. 384.

[87]. Beow. l. 6016 seq.: compare l. 5583 seq.

[88]. Ibid. l. 6320.

[89]. See the account of the burial of Haraldr Hilditavn in the Fornald. Savg. i. 387. “Ok áðr enn havgrinn væri aptr lokinn, þá biðr Hríngr Konúngr til gánga allt stórmenni ok alla Kappa, ok við voru staddir, at kasta í havginn stórum hríngum ok góðum vápnum, til sæmdr Haraldi Konúngi Hilditavn; ok eptir þat var aptr byrgði havgrinn vandliga.” Brynhildr caused the jewels which her father Buðli had given her, to be burnt with herself and Sigurðr. Sigurd, evid. iii. 65.

[90]. In Ireland this is so common as to have caused the existence of what we may call a professional class of treasure-seekers, whose idle, gambling pursuit is in admirable harmony with the Keltic hatred for honest, steady labour.

[91]. To this cause may be attributed the hoards discovered within a few years at Cuerdale, Hexham, and other places on the borders; and some perhaps of the numerous finds at Wisby and in Gothland.

[92]. “Partim sepultis thesauris, quorum plerique in hac aetate defodiuntur, Romam ad petendas suppetias ire intendunt.” Gest. Reg. i. § 3. It is well worth the consideration of our antiquarians who have devoted pains and money to the opening of barrows, how far the notorious searches which have been made for treasure in these repositories, by successive generations of Saxons, Danes and Normans, may have interfered with the original disposition of sepulchral mounds, cairns and cromlechs. The legend of Gúðlác supplies a Saxon instance of the highest antiquity. “Wæs ðǽr on ðám ealande sum hláw mycel ofer eorðan geworht, ðone ylcan men iúgeara for feos wilnunga gedulfon and brǽcon: ðá was ðǽr on óðre sídan ðæs hláwes gedolfen swylíc mycel wæterseáð wǽre.” Cap. 4. Godw. Ed. p. 26.

[93]. Beów. l. 6100. In the North it is difficult to find a hoard without a dragon, or a dragon without a hoard.

[94]. Concealment of treasure-trove is a grave offence, inasmuch as it immediately touches the person and dignity of the king: “De inventoribus thesauri occultati inventi, haec quidem graviora sunt et maiora, eo quod personam regis tangunt principaliter. Sunt etiam crimina aliquantulum minora ... sicut haec; de homicidiis causalibus et voluntariis,” seq. Fleta, lib. 1. cap. 20. § 1, 2, 3 seq., where this offence is assimilated to high-treason, and classed above all offences against individuals, including murder, rape, arson and burglary.

[95]. For a full account of this see Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 237.

[96]. See Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 262.

[97]. I have little doubt that, when Beda speaks of the pomp with which Eádwini of Northumberland was accustomed to ride, he refers to this ceremony. Hist. Eccl. ii. 16. The well-known tales of Eádgár, rowed by six kings on the Dee, and Cnut at Ely, will at once occur to the reader: but has it never occurred to him to ask what Eádgár could possibly be doing at the one place, or Cnut at the other? See Will. Malm. Gest. Reg. ii. § 148. The same author tells us of Eádgár: “Omni aestate, emensa statim Paschali festivitate, naves per omnia littora coadunari praecipiebat; ad occidentalem insulae partem cum orientali classe, et illa remensa cum occidentali ad borealem, inde cum boreali ad orientalem remigare consuetus; pius scilicet explorator, ne quid piratae turbarent. Hyeme et vere, per omnes provincias equitando, iudicia potentiorum exquirebat, violati iuris severus ultor; in hoc iustitiae, in illo fortitudini studens; in utroque reipublicae utilitatibus consulens.” Gest. Reg. ii. § 156. Flor. Wig. an. 975. “Cum more assueto rex Cnuto regni fines peragrarat.” Hist. Rames. Eccl. (Gale, iii. 441.)

[98]. Cod. Dipl. No. 143. “Necnon et trium annorum ad se pertinentes pastiones, id est sex convivia, libenter concedendo largitus est.” Probably they were in arrear, and Offa excused them: but they could not have been in arrear unless they were payable any under circumstances; that is, whether the king visited the monastery or not. I take this to be a standing tax, known under the name of Cyninges feorm, the king’s farm: it was probably commuted for money, and after a time rendered certain as to amount. In 814 Cénwulf released the Bishop of Worcester from a pastus of twelve men which he was bound to find at his different monasteries, and the exemption was worth an estate of thirteen hides. Cod. Dipl. No. 203.

[99]. See Vol. I. p. 294, seq. Examples may be found in almost every other page of the Codex Diplomaticus. See also Hist. Rames. Eccl. 85.

[100]. “Faciebant servitium regis cum equis vel per aquam usque ad Blidbeream, Reddinges, Sudtone, Besentone: et hoc facientibus dabat praepositus mercedem non de censu regis, sed de suo.” Domesd. Berks. Many of these burthens are summed up in a charter of liberties granted by Eédweard of Wessex at Taunton, to Winchester: “Erat namque antea in illo supradicto monasterio pastus unius noctis regi, et octo canum, et unius caniculari pastus, et pastus novem noctium accipitrariis regis, et quidquid rex vellet inde ducere usque ad Curig vel Willettun [Curry and Wilton in Somerset] cum plaustris et equis, et si advenae de aliis regionibus advenirent, debebant ducatum habere ad aliam regalem villam quae proxima fuisset in illorum via.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1084. The Vorspann in Hungary, which is a right to a peasant’s horses on the production of an order from the county authorities, is generally a convenience to himself as well as the traveller, who does not object to pay for much better accommodation than he could obtain from the ordinary posting establishment. But it is nevertheless a remnant of barbarism which we may now hope to see vanish, together with every other obstacle to free communication, under the management of that most patriotic and enlightened gentleman Count Stephen Szechenji.

[101]. On the complaint of the clergy of the diocese of Cremona, the emperor Lothaire decided that they were not bound to supply waggons and horses for his service. Böhm. Reg. Karol. No. 544.

[102]. “Homines de his terris custodiebant regem apud Cantuariam vel apud Sandwic per tres dies, si rex illuc venisset.” Domesd. Kent. “Quando rex iacebat in hac civitate, servabant eum vigilantes duodecim homines de melioribus civitatis. Et cum ibi venationem exerceret, similiter custodiebant eum cum armis meliores burgenses cabalos habentes.” Domesd. Shropsh. “Isti debent vigilare in curia domini, cum praesens fuerit.” Chartul. Evesh. f. 24.

[103]. “Qui monitus ad stabilitionem venationis non ibat quinquaginta solidos regi emendabat.” Domesd. Berks.

[104]. Hist. Rams. 106.

[105]. There are two places of this name on the coast of the Wash near Burnham Market in Norfolk. The one intended is most probably Ringstead St. Andrew’s.

[106]. Cod. Dipl. No. 809.

[107]. See Bracton, ii. 5. § 7. Westm. i. cap. 4. Stat. Praerog. Reg. cap. 11. Also 17. Edw. II. cap. 11. Rot. Chart. 20. Hen. III. m. 3. and 14. Edw. III. m. 6. Pat. 42. Hen. III. m. 1. dorso. See also Sir W. Stamford, Expos. King’s Prerog. fol 37, b.

[108]. Leg. Hen. I. 10. § 1. Ducange reads laganum for algarum.

[109]. Cod. Dipl. No. 737, where it is printed both in Latin and Saxon.

[110]. Cod. Dipl. No. 871.

[111]. Matt. Westm. an. 975.

[112]. “Ibi erant duo monetarii; quisque eorum reddebat regi unam marcam argenti, et viginti solidos, quando moneta vertebatur.” Domesd. Dorset. “Septem monetarii erant ibi; unus ex his erat monetarius episcopi. Quando moneta vertebatur, dabat quisque eorum octodecim solidos pro cuneis recipiendis, et ex eo die quo redibant usque ad unum mensem, dabat quisque eorum regi viginti solidos, et similiter habebat episcopus de suo monetario. In civitate Wirecestre habuit rex Edwardus hanc consuetudinem. Quando moneta vertebatur, quisque monetarius dabat XX solidos ad Londoniam, pro cuneis monetae accipiendis.” Domesd. Worcester. See also Domesd. Hereford.

[113]. Æðelr. iii. § 8; iv. § 9. Thorpe, i. 296, 303.

[114]. Æðelst. i. § 14. Thorpe, i. 206.

[115]. Or perhaps his relative, the abbess of Bedford, for it is difficult to conceive how during coverture, the queen could have coined, and proof is wanting that she was ever regent of his kingdom.

[116]. Cod. Dipl. No. 30. So likewise I imagine the ísengráfas (eisengruben) of Cod. Dipl. No. 1118 to be iron-mines.

[117]. Cod. Dipl. No. 67. “Aliquam agelli partem in qua sal confici solet ... ad construendos tres casulos et sex caminos ... sex alios ... caminos in duobus casulis, in quibus similiter sal conficitur, vicarios accipiens.”

[118]. Cod. Dipl. No. 68.

[119]. Cod. Dipl. No. 77. “Quarta pars aratri ... sali coquendo accommoda.... Et insuper addidi huic donationi ... in omni anno centum plaustra onusta de lignis ad coquendum sal.”