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

30

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

31

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

32

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

33

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

34

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

35

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],

36

the ealdormen in the shires, the geréfan in the various districts or towns, summoned his witan and

37

the legal period of majority among the germans, for public purposes. in this capacity he appointed

38

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

39

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

40

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

41

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

42

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,

43

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

44

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

45

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

46

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

47

no mention in the laws of the insigel or breve[67], but the charters give some evidence of what has

48

been averred. in a very important record of the time of 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

49

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

50

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

51

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

52

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].

53

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

54

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

55

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].

hí on beorg dydon

beág ⁊ beorht siglu,

. . . . . . . . . . . .

forléton eorla gestreón

eorðan healdan,

gold on greóte,

ðǽr hit nú gen lífað

eldum swá unnýt

swá hit ǽror wæs.

they put into the mound

rings and bright gems,

. . . . . . . . . . . .

they let earth hold

the gains of noble men,

gold in the dust,

where it doth yet remain

useless to men

even as before it was[89].

56

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

57

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

58

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

59

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

60

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].

61

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

62

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].

63

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

64

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.

65

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].

66

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

67

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

68

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

69

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

70

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

71

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

72

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.

73

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

74

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

75

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

76

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

77

retaining their property[143]. these examples, although not very numerous, are sufficient to show that the

78

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

79

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

80

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

81

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

82

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

83

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

84

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

85

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

86

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

87

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

88

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

89

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

90

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].

91

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

92

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

93

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

94

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

95

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

96

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.

97

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

98

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

99

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

100

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].

101

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

102

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

103

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.

“ðis gewrit is gewriten, stæf be stæfe, be ðám gewrite ðe dúnstán arcebisceop sealde úrum hláforde æt cingestúne á on dæg ðá hine man hálgode tó cinge, and forbeád him ælc wedd tó syllanne bútan ðysan wedde, ðe he úp on cristes weofod léde, swá se bisceop him dihte. ‘on ðǽre hálgan þrynnesse naman, ic þreo þing beháte cristenum folce and me underþeóddum: án ærest, ðæt ic godes cyrice and eall cristen folc mínra gewealda sóðe sibbe healde: óðer is, ðæt ic reáflác and ealle unrihte þing eallum hádum forbeóde: þridde, þæt ic beháte and bebeóde on eallum dómum riht and mildheortnisse, ðæt ús eallum ærfaest and mildheort god þurh ðæt his écean mittse forgife, se lifað and rixað.’”—reliq. ant. ii. 194.

“this writing is copied, letter for letter, from the writing which archbishop dúnstán delivered to our lord at kingston on the very day when he was consecrated king, and he forbad him to give any other pledge but this pledge, which he laid upon christ’s altar, as the bishop instructed him. ‘in the name of the holy trinity, three things do i promise to this christian people, my subjects: first, that i will hold god’s church and all the christian people of my realm in true peace: second, that i will forbid all rapine and injustice to men of all conditions: third, that i promise and enjoin justice and mercy in all judgements, whereby the just and merciful god may give us all his eternal favour, who liveth and reigneth!’”

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 mo. cco. lxxxo. 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 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.” 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.”

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 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.”

120. cod. dipl. no. 85.

121. cod. dipl. nos. 199, 201.

122. cod. dipl. no. 234. “et in eodem loco sali coquenda iuxta limenae, et in silva ubi dicitur andred, centum viginti plaustra ad coquendum sal.”

123. cod. dipl. no. 237, “cum putheis salis et fornacibus plumbis.”

124. cod. dipl. no. 288. “unamque salis coquinariam, hoc est án sealternsteall, and ðer cota to, in ilia loco ubi nominatur herewíc, et quatuor carris transductionem in silba regis sex ebdomades a die pentecosten hubi alteri homines silbam cedunt, hoc est in regis communione.”

125. cod. dipl. nos. 374. (cf. 1002). “et tres [mansas] in loco qui cearn nuncupatur ad coquendam salis copiam.” in 854, æðelwulf mentions salinaria in a grant to the same place. cod. dipl. no. 1051.

126. cod. dipl. no. 1066. “ego æðelred, divina largiente gratia principatu et dominio gentis merciorum subfultus, donatione trado æðelwulfo terrain quinque manentium in loco qui dicitur hymeltun ... salisque coctionibus, id est, sex vascula possint praeparari salva libertate, sine aliquo tributo dominatoris gentis praedictae, sive ducum, iudicumve et praesidum, id est statione sive inoneratione plaustrorum, nisi solo illi qui huic praedictae terrae hymeltune dominus existat ... ut haec traditio, sive in terra praedicta, sive in vico salis, absque omni censu atque tributo perpetualiter libera permaneat.”

127. cod. dipl. no. 1075. “bútan ðæt se wægnscilling and se seámpending gonge tó ðæs cyninges handa, swá he ealning dyde æt saltwíc:” except that the wainshilling and loadpenny (“statio et inoneratio plaustrorum”) shall go to the king’s hand, as they always did, at saltwíc.

128. tacit. ann. xiii. 57. “eadem aestate inter hermunduros cattosque certatum magno praelio, dum flumen gignendo sale fecundum et conterminum vi trahunt, super libidinem cuncta armis agendi religione insita, eos maxime locos propinquare coelo, precesque mortalium a deis nusquam propius audiri.”

129. deut. staatsr. ii. 426. § 297.

130. cod. dipl. no. 280. “habeat intus liberaliter modium et pondera et mensura[m], sicut in porto mos est ad fruendum.”

131. cod. dipl. no. 316. “et intro urnam et trutinam ad mensurandum in emendo sive vendendo ad usum, sive ad necessitatem propriam et liberam omnimodis habeat.... si autem foris vel in strata publica seu in ripa emptorali quislibet suorum mercaverit, iuxta quod rectum sit, thelonium ad manum regis subeat: quod si intus in curte praedicta quislibet emerit vel vendiderit, thelonium debitum ad manum episcopi supramemorati reddatur.”

132. cod. dipl. no. 1084. “praedictae etiam villae mercimonium, quod anglicè ðæs túnes cýping appellatur, censusque omnus civilis sanctae dei aecclesiae in wintonia civitate, sine retractionis obstaculo cum omnibus commodis aeternaliter deserviat.”

133. cod. dipl. no. 1075.

134. see böhmer, regest. karol. nos. 439, 628, 700, 2065, 2078.

135. eádw. § 1. æðelst. i. § 10, 12, 13; iii. § 2; v. § 10. eádm. i. § 5. eádg. sup. § 6. æðelb. i. § 3. cnut, ii. § 24. eádw. conf. § 38. wil. conq. i. § 45; iii. § 10, 11.

136. see böhmer, regest. karol. nos. 7, 14, 28, 31, 67, 71, 83, 89, 97, 111, 163, 206, 217, 220, 227, 231, 240, 252, 260, 272, 283, 288, 304, 308, 398, 415, 461, 463, 559, 561, 564, 566, 586, 592, 593, 605, 652, 693, 739, 787, 837, 885, 1528, 2067, 2073. these charters contain full particulars relative to the levy, release and grant of tolls in the frankish empire.

137. cod. dipl. no. 84. “navis onustae transvectionis censum qui a theloneariis nostris tributaria exactione impetitur, perdonans attribuo; ut ubique in regno nostro libera de omni regali fiscu et tributo maneat.”

138. cod. dipl. no. 95. “ðá forgeofende ic him álýfde alle nédbade twégra sceopa ða ðe ðǽr ábædde beóð fram ðám nédbaderum in lundentúnes hýðe; ond næfre ic né míne lastweardas né ða nédbaderas geþristlǽcen ðæt heó hit onwenden oððe ðon wiðgǽn.” see similar exemptions in cod. dipl. nos. 97, 98, 112.

139. cod. dipl. no. 78. “indico me dedisse ... unius navis, sive illa propria ipsius, sive cuiuslibet alterius hominis sit, incessum, id est vectigal, mihi et antecessoribus meis iure regio in portu lundoniae usque hactenus conpetentem.” and this was confirmed a century later by berhtwulf of mercia.

140. cod. dipl. no. 106. after mentioning one ship, relieved from toll in london, he continues: “alterius vero ... omne tributum atque vectigal concedimus, quod etiam a thelonariis nostris iuste impetitur publicis in locis, qui appellantur forduuíc et seorre.”

141. cod. dipl. no. 726. “ita habeant sicut siuerthus habuit in vita, in longitudine et in latitudine, in magnis et in modicis rebus, campis, pascuis, pratis, silvis, theloneum aquarum, piscationem in paludibus.”

142. cod. dipl. no. 737. “eorum est navicula et transfretatio portus, et theloneum omnium navium, cuiuscunque sit et undecumque veniat, quae ad praedictum portum et ad sanduuíc venerint.”

143. cod. dipl. no. 758. the story is altogether so good, and so well told, that it may be given here entire.

“this writing witnesseth how harold the king caused sandwich to be ridden about to his own hand: and he kept it for himself well nigh a twelvemonth, and at any rate fully two herring-seasons, all against god’s will, and against the saints’ who lie at christchurch, as it turned out ill enough for him afterwards. and during this time there went ælfstán the abbot of st. augustine’s, and got, with his lying flatteries and his gold and silver, all secretly from steorra who was the king’s redesman, a right to the third penny of the toll at sandwich. now when archbishop eádsige and all the brotherhood at christchurch learnt this, they took counsel together, that they should send ælfgár, the monk of christchurch, to king harold. now the king lay at oxford very ill, so that his life was despaired of; and there were with him lýfing, bishop of devonshire, and tancred the monk. then came the messenger from christchurch to the bishop; and he forth at once to the king, and with him ælfgár the monk, osweard of harrietsham, and tancred; and they told the king that he had deeply sinned against christ, in ever daring to take back anything from christchurch which his predecessors had given: and then they told him about sandwich, how it had been ridden about to his hand. there lay the king and turned quite black in the face at their tale, and swore by god almighty and all his saints to boot, that it never was either his rede or his deed, that sandwich should be taken from christchurch. so it was plain enough that it was other peoples’ and not king harold’s contrivance: and to say the truth, ælfstán the abbot’s counsel was with the men who counselled it out of christchurch. then king harold sent ælfgár the monk back to archbishop eádsige and all the monks at christchurch, and gave them god’s greeting and his own, and commanded that they should have sandwich, into christchurch, as fully and wholly as they had ever had it in any king’s day, both in rent, in stream, on strand, in fines, and in everything which any king had ever most fully possessed before them. now when abbot ælfstán heard of this, he came to archbishop eádsige and begged his support with the brotherhood, about the third penny: and away they both went to all the brotherhood and begged the convent that abbot ælfstán might be allowed the third penny of the toll, and he to give the convent ten pounds. but they refused it altogether throughout, and said it was no use asking: and withal archbishop eádsige backed him much more than he did the convent. and when he could not get on in this way, he asked leave to make a wharf over against mildðrýð’s acre, opposite the ferry (?) to keep, but all the convent decidedly refused this: and archbishop eádsige left it all to their own decision. then abbot ælfstán set to, with a great help, and let dig a great canal at hyppeles fleót, hoping that craft would lie there, just as they did at sandwich: however he got no good by it; for he laboureth in vain who laboureth against christ’s will. so the abbot left it in this state, and the convent took to their own, in god’s witness, and saint mary’s, and all the saints’ who rest at christchurch and saint augustine’s. this is all true, believe it who will: abbot ælfstán never got the third penny at sandwich in any other way. god’s blessing be with us all now and for ever more! amen.”

144. the following is the tariff of tolls levied at billingsgate. æðelr. iv. § 2. “de telonio dando ad bylingesgate. ad billingesgate, si advenisset una navicula, unus obolus telonei dabatur: si maior et haberet siglas, unus denarius. si adveniat ceól vel hulcus, et ibi iaceat, quatuor denarios ad teloneum. de navi plena lignorum, unum lignum ad teloneum. in ebdomada panum telonium tribus diebus, die dominica, et die martis et die jovis. qui ad pontem venisset cum uno bato, ubi piscis inesset, ipse mango unum obolum dabat in telonium, et de una maiori nave, unum denarium. homines de rotomago, qui veniebant cum vino vel craspice, dabant rectitudinem sex solidorum de magna navi, et vicesimum frustum de ipso craspice. flandrenses et ponteienses et normannia et francia, monstrabant res suas et extolneabant. hogge et leodium et nivella, qui per terras ibant, ostensionem dabant et teloneum. et homines imperatoris, qui veniebant in navibus suis, bonarum legum digni tenebantur, sicut et nos. praeter discarcatam lanum et dissutum unctum et tres porcos vivos licebat eis emere in naves suas; et non licebat eis aliquod foreceápum facere burhmannis; et dare telonium suum, et in sancto natali domini duos grisengos pannos, et unum brunum, et decem libras piperis, et cirotecas quinque hominum, et duos caballinos tonellos aceto plenos, et totidem in pascha: de dosseris cum gallinis, una gallina telonei, et de uno dossero cum ovis, quinque ova telonei, si veniant ad mercatum. smeremangestre, quae mangonant in caseo et butiro, quatuordecim diebus ante natale domini, unum denarium, et septem diebus post natale, unum alium.”

145. eichhorn, deut. staatsr. i. 813, § 199.

146. “lucos et nemora consecrant.” tac. germ. ix.

147. as early as 825 we find questions of pasture contested by the swángeréfa as an officer of the ealdorman. cod. dipl. no. 219. the scírholt mentioned in this document would seem to have been the shire-forest or public wood of the county; hence probably a royal ban-forest, subject to the royal officer, the ealdorman.

148. see these in thorpe, i. 426.

149. illiberalis; perhaps a freedman, or a free man not a landowner. the distinctions here are liber, illiberalis, servus.

150. this must denote gentry, something more than mere freedom.

151. the mediocris is defined as twýhynde, the liberalis as twelfhynde. § 33, 34.

152. this regulation was very likely forced upon him by his witan, inasmuch as it is also recorded in his laws, § 81. “every one shall be entitled to his hunting both in wood and field, upon his own property. and let every one forego my hunting: take notice where i will have it untrespassed upon, on penalty of the full wíte.”

153. see vol. i. p. 312.

154. cod. dipl. no. 1086. bishop denewulf gave ælfred forty hides at alresford, loaded with various conditions: among them, that his men should be ready “ge tó ripe ge tó hunt[n]oðe,” that is at the bishop’s harvest and hunting.

155. cod. dipl. no. 1287. oswald bishop of worcester, stating the terms on which he let the lands of his see, includes among them the services of his tenants at his hunting: “sed et venationis sepem domini episcopi [clearly a park] ultronei ad aedificandum repperiantur, suaque, quandocumque domino episcopo libuerit, venabula destinent venatum.”

156. the importance of pannage or masting was such as to cause the introduction of a clause guarding it, in the charta de foresta,—a document considered by our forefathers as hardly less important than magna charta itself: see § 9. domesday usually notes the amount of pannage in an estate, and fleta (bk. ii. cap. 80) thinks it necessary to devote a chapter to the subject.

157. the oldsaxons in westphalia called a distinguished class of persons erfexe, or hereditary axes, from their right to hew wood in the mark. möser (osnab. i. 19) gives an erroneous derivation for this name, but grimm corrects him: deut. rechtsalt. 504.

158. “dunhelmum veniens, locum quidem natura munitum, sed non facile habitabilem invenit, quoniam densissima eum silva totum occupabat,” etc. transl. sci. cuðb. bed. hist. vol. ii. p. 302. the earliest grants of land on which these establishments were placed, usually state the land to be silva or silvatica.

159. cod. dipl. no. 259.

160. cod. dipl. no. 276. “et decem carros cum silvo (sic) honestos in monte regis, et communionem marisci quae ad illam villam antiquitus cum recto pertinebat.”

161. cod. dipl. no. 241. “duobusque carris dabo licentiam silfam ad illas secundum antiquam consuetudinem et constituidem (sic) in aestate perferendam in commune silfa quod nos saxonicae in geménnisse dicimus.”

162. cod. dipl. no. 119. “et ad pascendum porcos et pecora, et iumenta in silva regali aeternaliter perdono; et unius caprae licentiam in silva quae vocatur saenling ubi meae vadunt.”

163. royal forests in which common of pasture, or timber is given by the king. cod. dipl. nos. 77, 107, 108, 201, 207, 234, 239, etc. civic and common forests in which the king makes similar grants. cod. dipl. nos. 96, 160, 179, 190, 198, 216, 219, etc. private forests, conveyed in general terms of the grant. cod. dipl. nos. 16, 17, 27, 32, 35, 36, 80, 83, 85, etc. private forests particularly defined as appurtenant. cod. dipl. nos. 80, 89, 138, 152, 161, 165, 187, 214, etc.

164. cod. dipl. nos. 47, 86, 96, etc.

165. cod. dipl. no. 56. “excepto eo, ut si quando in insula eidem ruri pertinente proventus copiosior glandis acciderit, uni solummodo gregi porcorum saginae pastus regi concederetur; et praeter hoc nulli, neque principi, neque praefecto, neque tiranno alicui, pascua constituantur.” this right of the king’s was called fearnleswe: “et illam terram ... liberabo a pascua porcorum regis quod nominamus fearnleswe.” cod. dipl. no. 277.

166. cod. dipl. no. 236. “silva quoque omnis quae illi aecclesiae et suburbanis eius suppetit, in omnibus causis sit libera, et non secetur ibi ad regis vel principis aedificia aliqua pars materiae grossi vel gracilis, sed ab omnibus defensa et libera maneat.” compare böhm. reg. karol. nos. 387, 1157, 1598.

167. from a speech of lord bacon’s against the abuses of purveyors, it appears that those who were to purvey timber for the king, even as late as the reign of james the first, used to extort money by the threat of felling ornamental trees in the avenues or grounds of mansion-houses. barrington, anc. stat. p. 7, note.

168. “if any one wrong an ecclesiastic or a foreigner, in anything touching either his property or his life, then shall the king, or the earl there in the land [i. e. among the danes] or the bishop of the people be unto him as a kinsman and protector: and let compensation be strictly made, according to the deed, both to christ and the king; or let the king among the people severely avenge the deed.” eádw. guð. § 12. thorpe, i. 174. see also ranks. § 8. æðelr. ix. § 33. cnut, ii. § 40. hen. i. x. § 3; lxxv. § 7.

169. cod. dipl. no. 236. “similiter de haereditate peregrinorum, id est gallorum et brittonum et horum similium, aecclesiae reddatur. praetium quoque sanguinis peregrinorum, id est wergyld, dimidiam partem rex teneat, dimidiam aecclesiae antedictae reddant.”

170. deut. staatsr. i. 422, § 297. he cites an instruction of margrave albrecht of brandenburg an. 1462, which contains this christian-like provision:—“when a roman emperor and king is crowned, he has a right to take all they possess throughout his realm, yea and their lives also, and to slay them, until only a little number of them be left, to serve as a memorial.” kings and populations, without being heads of the holy roman empire, assumed a similar right only too often.

171. eádw. conf. § 25. “sciendum est quod omnes judaei, ubicunque regno sint, sub tutela et defensione regis ligie debent esse. neque aliquis eorum potest subdere se alicui diviti sine licentia regis; quia ipsi judaei et omnia sua regis sunt. quod si aliquis detinuerit illos vel pecuniam eorum, rex requirat tanquam suum proprium, si vult et potest.”

172. cnut, ii. § 40. thorpe, i. 400.

173. böhm. reg. karol. nos. 88, 680, 1931.

174. it has already been noticed as remarkable that pontifex, the bridge-builder, should be the name for the priestly class. there are many superstitions connected with bridges, and the spirit of the bridge even to this day, in germany, demands his victims as inexorably as the spirit of the river. deut. mythol. p. 563. the passage in schol. ælii aristid. which speaks, according to a modern emendation, of palladia in connection with bridges, is hopelessly corrupt. but servius, æneid, ii. 661, says the athenian pallas was called γεφυρῖτις (not γεφυρίστης as the copies have), and this is confirmed by the interp. virgil, published by mai, where from her position on a bridge the goddess is called γεφυρῖτις Ἀθηνᾶ. pherecydes (no. 101) and phylarchus (no. 79) both appear to refer to this, if indeed the proposed readings can be admitted. see fragm. hist. græc. pp. 95, 356. there was in very early times a gens of γεφυραῖοι at athens, but i do not know if they had any priestly functions. they had the worship of δημήτηρ Ἄχαια, and were cadmæans who had immigrated into attica; from among them sprung harmodius and aristogeiton.

175. thierry, lettres sur l’hist. de france, p. 272. “ainsi élevés de la triste condition de sujets taillables d’une abbaye au rang d’alliés politiques d’un des plus puissants seigneurs, les habitans de vézelay cherchèrent à s’entourer des signes extérieurs qui annonçaient ce changement d’état. ils élevèrent autour de leurs maisons, chacun selon sa richesse, des murailles crénelées, ce qui était alors la marque de la garantie du privilége de liberté. l’un des plus considérables parmi eux, nommé simon, jeta les fondements d’une grosse tour carrée, comme celle dont les restes se voient à toulouse, à arles, et dans plusieurs villes d’italie. ces tours, auxquelles la tradition joint encore le nom de leur premier possesseur, donnent une grande idée de l’importance individuelle des riches bourgeois du moyen âge, importance bien autre que la petite considération dont ils jouirent plus tard sous le régime monarchique. cet appareil seigneurial n’était pas, dans les grandes villes de commune, le privilége exclusif d’un petit nombre d’hommes, seuls puissants au milieu d’une multitude pauvre: avignon, au commencement du treizième siècle, ne comptait pas moins de trois cents maisons garnies de tours.”

this last fact rests upon the authority of matthew paris. on the defeat of the commune, the order was given to raze their fortifications. the king himself, louis le jeune (a.d. 1155), distinctly decreed in the sentence which he pronounced against them, that within a given time the towers, walls and enclosures with which they had fortified their houses should be demolished. but the burghers had no such intention; “ces signes de liberté leur étaient plus chers que leur argent;” and they continued to resist even after the pope himself had written to the king of france to demand the execution of the decree. at length however the abbot of vézelay took the matter into his own hands. “il fit venir, des domaines de son église, une troupe nombreuse de jeunes paysans serfs, qu’il arma aussi bien qu’il put, et auxquels il donna pour commandants les plus déterminés de ses moines. cette troupe marcha droit à la maison de simon, et ne trouvant aucune résistance, se mit à démolir la tour et les murailles crénelées, tandisque le maître de la maison, calme et fier comme un romain du temps de la république, était assis au coin du feu avec sa femme et ses enfants. ce succès, obtenu sans combat, décida la victoire en faveur de la puissance seigneuriale, et ceux d’entre les bourgeois qui avaient des maisons fortifiées donnèrent à l’abbé des otages, pour garantie de la destruction de tous leur ouvrages de défense. ‘alors,’ dit le narrateur ecclésiastique, ‘toute querelle fut terminée, et l’abbaye de vézelay recouvra le libre exercice de son droit de juridiction sur ses vassaux rebelles.’” ibid. pp. 291, 292.

176. cod. dipl. no. 1075.

177. chron. sax. 1052. “ða geáxode rotberd arcebisceop ⁊ ða frencisce ðæt, genamon heora hors ⁊ gewendon, sume west tó pentecostes castele, sume norð tó rodberhtes castele.” however these were foreigners, a culpable complaisance towards whom is a grievous stain upon eádweard’s otherwise amiable, though weak, character.

178. böhm. deg. karol. nos. 248, 316.

179. rect. sing. pers. thorpe, i. 432.

180. æðelr. ii. § 2. thorpe, i. 284.

181. cnut, ii. § 74, 75.

182. “pro mercede solicitudinis et laboris, quo regem ædredum ad consensum inflexerat, ut ei liceret filiam cuiusdam viri ulfi; quam concupiverat, maritali sibi foedere copulare.” hist. rames. cap. 23.

183. cnut, ii. § 72. thorpe, i. 414.

184. a baronial court.

185. cod. dipl. no. 957.

186. ibid. no. 1173.

187. ibid. no. 1223.

188. ibid. no. 492.

189. ibid. no. 593.

190. cod. dipl. no. 699. this is very nearly the exact heriot. æðelríc, who was no friend to the king, probably meant to give him no doit more than he could legally claim.

191. cod. dipl. no. 716.

192. ibid. no. 967.

193. ibid. no. 979.

194. ibid. no. 782.

195. ibid. no. 410.

196. ibid. no. 685.

197. cod. dipl. no. 721.

198. domesd. berks. “tanias vel miles regis dominicus moriens pro relevamento dimittebat regi omnia arma sua, et equum unum cum sella, unum sine sella. quod si essent ei canes vel accipitres, praesentabantur regi, ut si vellet, acciperet.”

199. fleta, ii. cap. 57, § 1, 2. “imprimis autem debet quilibet qui testaverit dominum suum de meliori re quam habuerit recognoscere, et postea aecclesiam de alia meliori, et in quibusdam locis habet aecclesia melius animal de consuetudine, in quibusdam secundum vel tertium melius, et in quibusdam nihil: et ideo observanda est consuetudo loci.” § 2. “item de morte uxoris alicuius viri, dum vir superstes fuerit, de toto grege communi secundum melius averium, quasi de parte sua: sed hoc non nisi de permissione et gratia viri.” this melius catallum, bestehaupt or best-head was in fact a servile due: but in this sense it was an alleviation; for strictly speaking the lord could take the whole inheritance of his unfree tenant. in 1252 margaret countess of flanders gave this alleviation to the serfs of the crown: “tous les serfs demeurant en flandre, sous la justice propre de la comtesse, furent affranchis de servitude en 1252, à charge de payer par homme trois deniers, et par femme un denier annuellement; et le droit qu’elle avait à la moitié des meubles en catteux des serfs morts, fut reduit au meilleur cattel, [melius catallum] autre que maison ou bête de somme.” warnkönig. hist. fland. i. 259. on this subject generally see nelson, lex maneriorum, p. 154.