the conquest of the roman provinces in europe was accomplished by successive bands of adventurers, ranged under the banners of various leaders, whom ambition, restlessness or want of means had driven from their homes. but the conquest once achieved, the strangers settled down upon the territory they had won, and became the nucleus of nations: in their new settlements they adopted the rules and forms of institutions to which they had been accustomed in their ancient home, subject indeed to such modifications as necessarily resulted from the mode of the conquest, and their new position among vanquished populations, generally superior to themselves in the arts of civilized life. if we carefully examine the nature of these ventures, we shall i think come to the conclusion that they were carried on upon what may be familiarly termed the joint-stock principle. the owner of a ship, the supplier of the weapons or food necessary to set the business on foot, is the great capitalist of the company: the man of skill and judgment and experience is listened to with respect and cheerfully obeyed: the strong arms and unflinching courage of the multitude complete the work: and

183

when the prize is won, the profits are justly divided among the winners, according to the value of each man’s contribution to the general utility[472]. but in such voluntary associations as these, it is clear that every man retains a certain amount of free will, that he has a right to consult, discuss and advise, to assent to or dissent from the measures proposed to be adopted: even the council of war of such a band must differ very much from what in our day goes by that name; where a few officers of high rank decide, and the mass of the army blindly execute their plans. it cannot then surprise us that in such cases everything should be done with the counsel, consent and leave of the associated adventurers. the bands were then not too numerous for general consultation: there was no fear lest treachery or weakness should betray the plans to an enemy: the necessities of self-preservation guaranteed the faith of every individual; for, camped among hostile and exasperated populations, ignorant of their tongue, and remote from them in manners, the german straggler, captive or deserter could look forward to nothing save a violent death or a life of weary slavery. mutual participation in danger must have given rise to mutual trust.

again the principle upon which the settlement of the land was effected, was that of associations for common benefits, and a mutual guarantee of

184

peaceful possession[473]. each man stood engaged to his neighbour, both as to what he would himself avoid, and as to what he would maintain. the public weal was the immediate interest of every individual member of the state; it came home to him at every instant of his life, directly, pressing him either in his property, his freedom or his peace, not through a long and accidental chain of distant causes and results. moreover in an association based upon the individual freedom of the associates, each man had a right to guard the integrity of the compact to which he was himself a party; and not only a right, but a strong interest in exercising it, for in proportion to the smallness of the state, is the effect which the conduct of any single member may produce upon its welfare. but wherever free men meet on equal terms of alliance, the will of the majority is the law of the state. if the minority be small it must submit, or suffer for rebellion: if large, and capable of independent action and subsistence, it may peaceably separate from the majority, renounce its intimate alliance, and emigrate to new settlements, where it may at its own leisure, and in its own way, develop its peculiar views of

185

polity, leaving to fortune or to the gods to decide the abstract question of right between itself and its opponents. how then is the will of the majority to be ascertained? where the number of citizens is small, the question is readily answered: by the decision of a public meeting at which all may be present.

now such public meetings or councils we find in existence among the germans from their very first appearance in history. the graphic pen of tacitus has left us a lively description of their nature and powers, and in some degree their forms of business. he says[474],—“in matters of minor import, the chiefs take counsel together; in weightier affairs, the whole body of the state: but in such wise, that the chiefs have the power of discussing and recommending even those measures, which the will of the people ultimately decides. they meet, except some sudden and fortuitous event occur, on fixed days, either at new or full moon.... this inconvenience arises from their liberty, that they do not assemble at once, or at the time for which they are summoned, but a second or even a third day is wasted by the delay of those who are to meet. they sit down, in arms, just as it suits the convenience of the crowd. silence is enjoined by the priests, who, on these occasions, have even the power of coercion. then the king, or the prince, or any one, whom his age, nobility, his honours won in war or his eloquence may authorise to speak, is listened

186

to, more through the influence of persuasion than the power of command. if his opinion do not please them, they reject it with murmurs: if it do, they dash their lances together. the most honourable form of assent is adoption by clashing of arms. it is lawful also to bring accusations, and prosecute capitally before the council. the punishment varies with the crime. traitors and deserters they hang on trees; cowards, the unwarlike, and infamous of body they bury alive in mud and marsh, with a hurdle cast over them: the difference of the penalty has this intention as it were, that crimes should be made public, but infamous vices hidden, while being punished.... in the same councils also, princes are elected, to give law in the shires and villages. each has a hundred comrades from among the people, both to advise him and add to his authority. they transact no business either of a public or private nature, without their weapons. but it is not the custom for any one to begin wearing them, before the state has approved of him as likely to be an efficient citizen. then, in the public meeting itself, either one of the chiefs, or his father or a kinsman, decorates the youth with a shield and javelin. this is their toga; this is the first dignity of their youth: before this they appear part of a household,—after it, of a state.”

such then was the nature of a teutonic parliament as tacitus had learnt that it existed in his time; nor is there the least doubt that he has described it most truly. and such were all the popular meetings of later periods, whether shiremoots,

187

markmoots, or the great placita of kingdoms, folkmoots in the most extended sense of the term. such, at least in theory, and to a great extent in practice, were the meetings of the franks under the merwingian kings, and even under the carolings. it will not be uninteresting or without advantage to compare with this account the description which hincmar, archbishop of rheims, gives of the institution as recognised and organized by charlemagne, a prince by nature not over well disposed to popular freedom, and by circumstances placed in a situation to be very dangerous to it[475].

charlemagne held reichstage or parliaments twice a year, in may and again in the autumn, for the general arrangement of the public business. the earlier of these was attended by the principal officers of state, the ministers as we should call them, both lay and clerical, the administrators of the public affairs in the provinces, and other persons engaged in the business of government. these, who are comprehended under the titles of maiores, seniores, optimates, may possibly have had the real conduct of the deliberations; but there is no doubt that the freemen were also present, first because the general armed muster or hereban took place at the same time,—the well-known campus madius or champ de mai,—and partly because we know that all new capitularies added to the existing law were subjected to their approval[476]. we may

188

therefore conclude that they were still possessed of a share in the business of legislation, although it may have only amounted to a right of accepting or rejecting the propositions of others. the king had his particular curia, court or council, the members of which were chosen (“eligebantur”), though how or by whom we know not, from the laity and the clergy: probably both the king and the people had their share in the election. the seniores, according to hincmar, were called “propter consilium ordinandum,” to lead the business; the minores, “propter idem consilium suscipiendum,” to accept the same; but also “interdum pariter tractandum,” sometimes to take a part also in the discussions, “and to confirm them, not indeed by any inherent power of their own, but by the moral influence of their judgment and opinion.”

the second great meeting comprised only the seniores and the king’s immediate councillors[477]. it appears to have been concerned with questions of revenue as well as general policy. but its main object was to prepare the business and anticipate the necessities of the coming year. it was a deliberative assembly[478] in which questions afterwards to be submitted to the general meeting were discussed and agreed upon. the members of this council were bound to secrecy. when the public

189

business had been concluded, they formed a court of justice and of appeal, for the settlement of litigation in cases which transcended the powers or skill of the ordinary tribunals[479].

the general councils were held, in fine weather, in the open air, or, if occasion required, in houses devoted to the purpose. the ecclesiastics and the magnates, for so we may call them, sat apart from the multitude; but even they had separate chambers, in which the clergy could deliberate upon matters purely ecclesiastical, the magnates upon matters purely civil: but when the object of their enquiry was of a mixed character, they were called together[480]. before these chambers the questions were brought which had been prepared at the preceding meeting, or arose from altered circumstances: the opinion of the members was taken upon them, and when agreed to they were presented

190

to the king, who agreed or disagreed in turn, as the case might be. while the new laws or administrative regulations were under discussion, the king, unless especially invited to be present at the deliberations, occupied himself in mixing with the remaining multitude, receiving their presents, welcoming their leaders, conversing with the new comers, sympathizing with the old, congratulating the young, and in similar employments, both in spirituals and temporals, says hincmar[481]. when the prepared business had been disposed of, the king propounded detailed interrogatories to the chambers, respecting the state of the country in the different districts, or what was known of the intentions and actions of neighbouring countries; and these having been answered or reserved for consideration, the assembly broke up. when any new chapters, hence called capitula, had been added to the ancient law or folkright, special messengers (missi) were dispatched into the provinces to obtain the assent and signatures of the free men, and the chapters thus ratified became thenceforth the law of the land. is it unreasonable to suppose that the proposals of the princes were also presented to the assembled freemen, the reliqua multitudo, in arms upon the spot, and that in the old german fashion they carried them by acclamation?

191

while the district whose members attend the folkmoot is still small, there is no great inconvenience in this method of proceeding. in the empire of charlemagne attendance upon the campus madius, whether as soldier or councillor must have been a heavy burthen. nor can we conceive it to have been otherwise here, as soon as counties became consolidated into kingdoms, and kingdoms into an empire. in a country overrun with forests, intersected with deep streams or extensive marshes, and but ill provided with the means of internal communication, suit and service even at the county-court must have been a hardship to the cultivator; a duty performed not without danger, and often vexatiously interfering with agricultural processes on which the hopes of the year might depend. much more keenly would this have been felt had every freeman been called upon to attend beyond the limits of his own shire, in places distant from, and totally unknown to him: how for example would a cultivator from essex have been likely to look upon a journey into gloucestershire[482] at the severe season

192

of christmas[483], or the, to him, important farming period of easter? what moreover could he care for general laws affecting many districts beside the one in which he lived, or for regulations applying to fractions of society in which he had no interest? for the saxon cultivator was not then a politician; nor were general rules which embraced a whole kingdom of the same moment to him, as those which might concern the little locality in which his alod lay. or what benefit could be expected from

193

his attendance at deliberations which concerned parts of the country with whose mode of life and necessities he was totally unacquainted? lastly, what evil must not have resulted to the republic by the withdrawal of whole populations from their usual places of employment, and the congregating them in a distant and unknown locality? if we consider these facts, we shall find little difficulty in imagining that any scheme which relieved him from this burthen and threw it upon stronger shoulders, would be a welcome one, and the foundation of a representative system seems laid à priori, and in the nature of things itself. to the rich and powerful neighbour whose absence from his farms was immaterial, while his bailiffs remained on the spot to superintend their cultivation; to the scírgeréfa, the ealdorman, the royal reeve, or royal thane, familiar with the public business, and having influence and interest with the king; to the bishop or abbot, distinguished for his wisdom as well as his station; to any or all of these he would be ready to commit the defence of his small, private interests, satisfied to be virtually represented if he were not compelled to leave the business and the enjoyments of his daily life[484].

on the other hand, to whom could the king look with greater security, than to the men whose sympathies were all those of the ruling caste; many

194

of whom were his own kinsmen by blood or marriage, more of whom were his own officers; men, too, accustomed to business, and practically acquainted with the wants of their several localities? or how, when the customs and condition of widely different social aggregations were to be considered and reconciled, could he do better than advise with those who were most able to point out and meet the difficulties of the task? thus, it appears to me, by a natural process did the folkmót or meeting of the nation become converted into a witena gemót or meeting of councillors. nor let it be imagined by this that i mean the king’s councillors only: by no means; they were the witan or councillors of the nation, members of the great council or inquest, who sought what was for the general good, certainly not men who accidentally formed part of what we in later days call the king’s council, and who might have been more or less the creatures of his will: they were leódwitan, þeódwitan, general, popular, universal councillors: only when they chanced to be met for the purpose of advising him could they bear the title of the cyninges þeahteras or cyninges witan. then no doubt the leódwitan became ðæs cyninges witan (the king’s, not king’s, councillors) because without their assistance he could not have enacted, nor without their assistance executed, his laws. let it be borne in mind throughout that the king was only the head of an aristocracy which acted with him, and by whose support he reigned; that this aristocracy again was only a higher order of the

195

freemen, to whose class it belonged, and with many of whose interests it was identified; that the clergy, learned, active and powerful, were there to mediate between the rulers and the ruled; and i think we shall conclude that the system which i have faintly sketched was not incapable of securing to a great degree the well-being of a state in such an early stage of development as the saxon commonwealth. at what exact period the change i have attempted to describe was effected, is neither very easy to determine nor very material. it was probably very gradual, and very partial; indeed it may never have been formally recognised, for here and there we find evident traces of the people’s being present at, and ratifying the decisions of the witan. much more important is it to consider certain details respecting the composition, powers and functions of the witena gemót as we find it in periods of ascertained history. the documents contained in the codex diplomaticus ævi saxonici enable us to do this in some degree. in that collection there are several grants which are distinctly stated to have been made in such meetings of the witan, by and with their consent, and the signatures to which may be assumed to be those of members present on the occasion. among these we find the king, frequently the æðelings or princes of the blood, generally the archbishops and all or some of the bishops and abbots; all or some of the dukes or ealdormen; sometimes priests and deacons; and generally a large attendance of milites, ministri or thanes, many of whom must unhesitatingly be asserted

196

to be royal officers, geréfan and the like, in the shires[485]. from one document it is evident that

197

the sheriffs of all the counties were present[486]: and in a few cases we meet with names accompanied by no special designation. now it appears that a body so constituted would have been very competent to advise for the general good; and i do not scruple to express my opinion that under such a system the interests of the country were very fairly represented; especially as there were then no parliamentary struggles to make the duration of ministries dependent upon the counting up of single votes; and contests for the representation of counties or boroughs would have been as much without an object in those days, as they are important in our own; above all, since there was then no systematic voting of money for the public service.

198

among the charters from which we derive our information as to the constituent members of the gemót, one or two appear to be signed by the queen and other ladies, always i believe, ecclesiastics of rank and wealth. i do not however, on this account, argue that such women formed parts of the regular body. in many cases it is clear that when a grant had been made by the king and his witan, the document was drawn up, and offered for attestation to the principal persons present or easily accessible. when the queen had accompanied her consort to the place where the gemót was held, or when, as was usual, the gemót attended the king at one of his own residences to assist in the hospitalities of christmas and easter, it was natural that the first lady of the land should be asked to witness grants of land, and other favours conferred upon individuals: it was a compliment to herself, not less than to him whom she honoured with her signature. but i know no instance where the record of any solemn public business is so corroborated; nor does it follow that the document which was drawn up in accordance with the resolution of a gemót should necessarily be signed in the gemót itself. it may have been executed subsequently at the king’s festal board, and in presence of the members of his court and household. the case of abbesses, if not disposed of by the arguments just advanced, must be understood of gemóts in which the interests of the monastic bodies were concerned. here it is possible that ladies of high rank at the head of nunneries may have attended to watch the proceedings

199

of the synod and attest its acts. again, where the gemót acted as a high court of justice, which often was the case, a lady who had been party to a cause might naturally be called upon to sign the record of the judgment. the instances however in which the signatures of women occur are very rare.

although the members of the gemót are called in saxon generally by the name of witan[487], they are decorated with very various titles in the latin documents. among these the most common are maiores natu, sapientes, principes, senatores, primates, optimates, magnates, and in three or four charters they are designated procuratores patriae[488], which last title however seems confined to the thanes, geréfan or other members below the rank of an ealdorman. in the prologue to the laws of wihtrǽd they are called ða eádigan, for which i know no better translation than the spanish ricos hombres, where the wealth of the parties is certainly not the leading idea. but whatever be their titles they are unquestionably looked upon as representing the whole body of the people, and consequently the national will: and indeed in one charter of æðelstán, an. 931, the act is said to have been confirmed “tota plebis generalitate ovante,” with

200

the approbation of all the people[489]; and the act of a similar meeting at winchester in 934, which was attended by the king, four welsh princes, two archbishops, seventeen bishops, four abbots, twelve dukes, and fifty-two thanes, making a total of ninety-two persons, is described to have been executed “tota populi generalitate[490].” on one occasion a gemót is mentioned of which the members are called the king’s heáhwitan, or high councillors[491]: it is impossible to say whether this is intended to mark a difference in their rank. if it were, it might be referred to the analogy of the autumnal meetings in charlemagne’s constitution, but nothing has yet been met with to confirm this hypothesis, which, in itself, is not very probable.

the largest amount of signatures which i have yet observed is 106, but numbers varying from 90 to 100 are not uncommon, especially after the consolidation of the monarchy[492]. in earlier times, and smaller kingdoms, the numbers must have been much less: the gemót which decided upon the reception of christianity in northumberland was held in a room[493], and dunstan met the witan of england in the upper floor of a house at calne[494]. other meetings, which were rather in the nature of conventions, and were held in the presence of armies, may have been much more numerous and tumultuary,—much

201

more like the ancient armed folkmoot or the famous day which put an end to the merwingian dynasty among the franks[495].

that the members of the witena gemót were not elected, in any sense which we now attach to the word, i hold to be indisputable: elective witan ceased together with elective scírgeréfan or ealdormen[496]. but in a system so elastic as the saxon, it is conceivable that an ealdorman, bishop or other great wita may have occasionally carried with him to the gemót some friend or dependent whose wisdom he thought might aid in the discussions, or whom the opinion of the neighbourhood designated as a person well calculated to advise for the general good,—a slight trace, but still a trace, of the

202

ancient popular right to be present at the settlement of public business. to this i attribute the frequent appearance of priests and deacons, who probably attended in the suite of prelates, and would be useful assessors when clerical business was brought before the council. generally, i imagine, the witan after having once been called by writ or summons, met like our own peers, as a matter of course, whenever a parliament was proclaimed; and that they were summoned by the king, either pro hac vice, or generally, can be clearly shown. æðelstán, speaking of the gemóts at greatanleá, exeter, feversham and thundersfield, says that the consultations were made, before the archbishop, the bishops, and the witan present, whom the king himself had named: “swá æðelstán cyng hit gerǽed hæfð, ⁊ his witan, ǽrest æt greátanleá, ⁊ eft æt exanceastre, ⁊ syððám æt fæfreshám, ⁊ feorðan síðe æt ðunresfelda, beforan ðám arcebiscope, ⁊ eallum ðám bisceopan, ⁊ his witum, ðe se cyng silf namode, ðe ðǽron wǽron[497].” how these appointments took place is not very material, but as the witan were collected from various parts of england, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it was by the easy means of a writ and token, gewrit and insigel. the meeting was proclaimed some time in advance, at some one of the royal residences[498].

203

the proper saxon name for these assemblies was witena gemót[499], literally the meeting of the witan; but we also find, micel gemót, the great meeting; sinoðlíc gemót, the synodal meeting; seonoð, the synod. the latin names are concilium, conventus, synodus, synodale conciliabulum, and the like. although synodus and seonoð might more properly be confined to ecclesiastical conventions, the saxons do not appear to have made any distinction; probably because ecclesiastical and secular regulations were made by the same body, and at the same time. but it is very probable that the frankish system of separate houses for the clergy and laity prevailed here also, and that merely ecclesiastical affairs were decided by the king and clergy alone. there are some acts in which the signatures are those of clergymen only, others in which the clerical signatures are followed and, as it were, confirmed by those of the laity; and in one remarkable case of this kind, the king signs at the head of each list, as if he had in fact affixed his mark successively in the two houses, as president of each[500].

204

a more important question for us is, what were the powers of the witena gemót? it must be answered by examples in detail.

1. first, and in general, they possessed a consultative voice, and right to consider every public act, which could be authorised by the king. this has been attempted to be denied, but without sufficient reason. runde, who is one of the upholders of the erroneous doctrine on this subject, appeals to the introduction of christianity into kent, which he perhaps justly declares to have been made without the assent of the witan[501]. but it does not at all follow that the first reception of augustine by æðelberht is to be considered a public act, or that it had any immediate consequences for the public law. nor is it certain that at a later period, a meeting of the witan may not have ratified the private proceeding of the king. æðelberht, who had some experience of christianity from the doctrine and practice of his frankish consort beorhte, may have chosen to trust to the silent, gradual working of the missionaries, without courting the opposition of a heathen witena gemót, till assured of success: his court were already accustomed to the sight of a christian bishop and clergy in beorhte’s suite, and

205

augustine with his company might easily pass for a mere addition to that department of the royal household. indeed augustine himself does not appear to have been at all ambitious of martyrdom, and probably preferred trying the chances of a gradual progress to a stormy and perhaps fatal collision with a body of barbarians, led by a pagan and rival priesthood. the words of beda therefore can prove nothing in the matter, except indeed what is most important for us, viz. that æðelberht at first refused to interfere as king, that is, would not make a public question of augustine’s mission[502]. but runde seems to have forgotten that æðelberht’s laws, which must be dated between 596 and 605, do most emphatically recognise christianity and the christian priesthood; and as beda declares him to have enacted these laws “cum consilio sapientum[503],” we shall hardly be saying too much if we affirm that the introduction of christianity was at least ratified by a solemn act of the witan. runde’s further remarks upon the conversion of northumberland seem to prove that he really never read through the passages he himself cites, so completely do they refute his own arguments[504].

2. the witan deliberated upon the making of new laws which were to be added to the existing folcriht[505], and which were then promulgated by their own

206

and the king’s authority[506]. beda, in a passage just cited, says of æðelberht:—“amongst other benefits which consulting, he bestowed upon his nation, he gave her also, with the advice of his witan, decrees of judgments, after the example of the romans: which, written in the english tongue, are yet possessed and observed by her[507].” and these laws were enacted by their authority, jointly with the king’s. the prologue to the law of wihtrǽd declares:—“these are the dooms of wihtrǽd, king of the men of kent. in the reign of the most clement king of the men of kent, wihtrǽd, in

207

the fifth year of his reign, the ninth indiction[508]. the sixth day of the month rugern, in the place which is called berghamstead[509], where was assembled a deliberative convention of the great men[510]; there was brihtwald the high-bishop[511] of britain, and the aforenamed king; also the bishop of rochester; the same was called gybmund, he was present; and every degree of the church in that tribe, spake in unison with the obedient people[512]. there the great men decreed, with the suffrages of all, these dooms, and added them to the lawful customs of the men of kent, as hereafter is said and declared[513].”

the prologue to the laws of ini establishes the same fact for wessex; he says,—“ini, by the grace of god, king of the westsaxons, with the advice and by the teaching of cénred, my father, and of hedde my bishop, and ercenwold my bishop, with all my ealdormen, and the most eminent witan of my people, and also with a great assemblage of god’s servants[514], have been considering respecting our soul’s heal, and the stability of our realm; so that right law, and right royal judgments might be settled and confirmed among our people; so that

208

none of our ealdormen, nor of those who are subject unto us, should ever hereafter turn aside these our dooms[515].”

and this is confirmed in more detail by ælfred. this prince, after giving some extracts from the levitical legislation, and deducing their authority through the apostolical teaching, proceeds to engraft upon the latter the peculiar principle of bót or compensation which is the characteristic of teutonic legislation[516]. he says,—“after this it happened that many nations received the faith of christ; and then were many synods assembled throughout all the earth, and among the english race also, after they had received the faith of christ, of holy bishops, and also of their exalted witan. they then ordained, out of that mercy which christ had taught, that secular lords, with their leave, might without sin take for almost every misdeed—for the first offence—the bót in money which they then ordained; except in cases of treason against a lord, to which they dared not to assign any mercy; because almighty god adjudged none to them that

209

despised him, nor did christ, the son of god, adjudge any to him that sold him unto death: and he commanded that a lord should be loved like oneself[517]. they then, in many synods, decreed a bót for many human misdeeds; and in many synod-books they wrote, here one doom, there another.

“then i, ælfred the king, gathered these together, and commanded many of those which our forefathers held, and which seemed good to me, to be written down; and many which did not seem good to me, i rejected by the counsel of my witan, and commanded them in other wise to be holden; but much of my own i did not venture to set down in writing, for i knew not how much of it might please our successors. but what i met with, either of the time of ini my kinsman, or of offa, king of the mercians, or æðelberht who first of the english race received baptism, the best i have here collected, and the rest rejected. i then, ælfred king of the westsaxons, showed these to all my witan, and they then said, that it liked them well so to hold them.”

the laws of eádweard like those of hloðhere and eádríc have no proem: next in order of time are those of æðelstán. the council of greatley opens with an ordinance which the king says was framed by the advice of wulfhelm, archbishop of canterbury and his other bishops: no other witan are mentioned. now it is remarkable enough that this ordinance refers exclusively to tithes, and other

210

ecclesiastical dues, and works of charity. but the secular ordinances which follow conclude with these words: “all this was established in the great synod at greátanleá; in which was archbishop wulfhelm, with all the noblemen and witan whom æðelstán the king [commanded to] gather together[518].”

the witan at exeter, under the same king, are much more explicit as to their powers: in the preamble to their laws, they say: “these are the dooms which the witan at exeter decreed, with the counsel of æðelstán the king, and again at feversham, and a third time at thundersfield, where the whole was settled and confirmed together[519].”

the concurrence of these witan is continually appealed to in the saxon laws which follow[520], and which are supplementary to the three gemóts mentioned. but in a chapter (§ 7) concerning ordeals, the regulation is said to be by command of god, the archbishop and all the bishops, and the other witan are not mentioned; probably because the administration of the ordeal was a special, ecclesiastical function. again in the judicia civitatis londoniae the joint legislative authority of the king and the witan is repeatedly alluded to[521].

eádmund commences his laws by stating that he had assembled a great synod in london at easter, at which the two archbishops, oda and wulfstan, were present, together with many bishops and persons of ecclesiastical as well as secular condition[522].

211

and having thus given the authority by which he acted, he proceeds to the details of his law, which he again declares to have been promulgated, after deliberation with the council of his witan, ecclesiastical and lay[523]. the council of culinton, held under the same prince, commences thus: “this is the decree which eádmund the king and his bishops, with his witan, established at culinton, concerning the maintenance of peace, and taking the oaths of fidelity.”

next comes eádgár, whose law commences in these words: “this is the ordinance which eádgár the king, with the counsel of his witan, ordained, to the praise of god, his own honour, and the benefit of all his people[524].”

in like manner, æðelred informs us that his law was ordained, “for the better maintenance of the public peace, by himself and his witan at woodstock, in the land of the mercians, according to the laws of the angles[525].” in precisely similar terms he speaks of new laws made by himself and his witan at wantage[526]. in a collection of laws passed in 1008, under the same prince, we find the following preamble[527]: “this is the ordinance which the king of the english, with his witan, both clerical and lay, have chosen[528] and advised;” and every one of the first five paragraphs commences with

212

the same solemn words, viz. “this is the ordinance of our lord, and of his witan,” etc.

but far more strongly is this marked in the provisions of the council of enham, under the same miserable prince. these are not only entitled, “ordinances of the witan[529],” but throughout, the king is never mentioned at all, and many of the chapters commence, “it is the ordinance of the witan,” etc. if it were not for one or two enactments referring to the safety of the royal person, and the dignity of the crown, we might be almost tempted to imagine that the great councillors of state had met, during æðelred’s flight from england, and passed these laws upon their own authority, without the king. the laws of 1014 commence again with the words so often repeated in this chapter[530], and such also usher in the very elaborate collection which cnut and his witan compiled at winchester[531].

now i think that any impartial person will be satisfied with these examples, and admit that whoever the witan may have been, they possessed a legislative authority, at least conjointly with the king. indeed of two hypothetical cases, i should be far more inclined to assert that they possessed it without him, than that he possessed it without them: at least, i can find no instance of the latter; while i have shown that there was at least a probability of the former: and even æðelred himself says, twice: “wise in former days were those

213

secular witan[532] who first added secular laws to the just divine laws, for bishops and consecrated bodies; and reverenced for love of god holiness and holy orders, and god’s houses and his servants firmly protected.” again[533]: “wise were those secular witan who to the divine laws of justice added secular laws for the government of the people; and decreed bót to christ and the king, that many should thus, of necessity, be compelled to right.”

is it not manifest that he, like ælfred, really felt the legislative power to reside in the witan, rather than in the king?

3. the witan had the power of making alliances and treaties of peace, and of settling their terms.

the defeat of the danes by ælfred, in 878, was followed, as is well known, by the baptism of guðorm æðelstán, and the peaceful establishment of his forces in portions of the ancient kingdoms of mercia, essex, eastanglia and northumberland. the terms of this treaty, and the boundaries of the new states thus constituted were solemnly ratified, perhaps at wedmore[534]; the first article of this important public act, by which ælfred obtained a considerable accession of territory, runs thus[535]: “this is the peace that ælfred the king, and gyðrum the king, and the witan of all the english nation, and all the people that are in eastanglia, have all ordained and confirmed with oaths, for themselves and for their descendants, born and unborn, who

214

desire god’s favour or ours. first, concerning our land-boundaries,” etc. in like manner the treaty which eádweard entered into with the same danes, is said to have been frequently (“oft and unseldan”) renewed and ratified by the witan[536].

we still have the terms of the shameful peace which æðelred bought of olafr tryggvason and his comrades in 994. the document, which was probably signed at andover[537], commences with the following words: “these are the articles of peace and the agreement which æðelred the king and all his witan have made with the army which accompanied anlaf, and justin and guðmund, the son of stegita[538].”

many other instances might be cited, as for example the entry in the chronicle, anno 947, where it is stated that eádred made a treaty of peace with the witan of northumberland at taddenes scylf, which was broken and renewed in the following year: but further evidence upon this point seems unnecessary[539].

4. the witan had the power of electing the king.

the kingly dignity among the anglosaxons was partly hereditary, partly elective: that is to say, the kings were usually taken from certain qualified families, but the witan claimed the right of choosing the person whom they would have to reign. their history is filled with instances of occasions when

215

the sons or direct descendants of the last king have been set aside in favour of his brother or some other prince whom the nation believed more capable of ruling: and the very rare occurrence of discontent on such occasions both proves the authority which the decision of the witan carried with it, and the great discretion with which their power was exercised. only here and there, when the witan were themselves not unanimous, do we find any traces of dissensions arising out of a disputed succession[540]. on every fresh accession, the great compact between the king and the people was literally, as well as symbolically, renewed, and the technical expression for ascending the throne is being “gecoren and áhafen tó cyninge,” elected and raised to be king: where the áhafen refers to the old teutonic custom of what we still at election times call chairing the successful candidate; and the gecoren denotes the positive and foregone conclusion of a real election. alfred’s own accession is a familiar instance of this fact: he was chosen, to the prejudice of his elder brother’s children; but the nation required a prince capable of coping with dangers and difficulty, and asser tells us that he was not only received as king by the unanimous assent of the people, but that, had he so pleased, he might have dethroned

216

his brother æðelred and reigned in his place[541]. his words are: “in the same year (871) the aforesaid ælfred, who hitherto, during the life of his brother, had held a secondary place, immediately upon æðelred’s death, by the grace of god, assumed the government of the whole realm, with the greatest goodwill of all the inhabitants of the kingdom; which indeed, even during his aforesaid brother’s life, he might, had he chosen, have done with the greatest ease, and by the universal consent; truly, because both in wisdom and in all good qualities he much excelled all his brothers; and moreover because he was particularly warlike, and successful in nearly all his battles[542].”

not one word have we here about his nephews, or any rights they might possess: and asser seems to think royalty itself a matter entirely dependent upon the popular will, and the good opinion entertained by the nation of its king. i shall conclude this head by citing a few instances from saxon documents of the intervention of the witan in a king’s election and inauguration.

in 924, the chronicle says: “this year died eádweard the king at fearndún, among the mercians ... and æðelstán was chosen king by the mercians, and consecrated at kingston.”

florence of worcester, an. 959, distinctly asserts

217

that eádgar was elected by all the people of england,—“ab omni anglorum populo electus ... regnum suscepit.”

in 979, the chronicle again says: “this year æðelred took to the kingdom; and he was soon after consecrated king at kingston, with great rejoicing of the english witan.”

in 1016, the election of eádmund írensída is thus related: “then befel it that king æðelred died ... and then after his death, all the witan who were in london, and the townsmen, chose eádmund to be king.” again in 1017: “this year was cnut elected king.”

in 1036 again we have these words: “this year died cnut the king at salisbury ... and soon after his decease there was a gemót of all the witan (‘ealra witena gemót’) at oxford: and leófríc the eorl, and almost all the thanes north of the thames, and the lithsmen in london chose harald to be chief of all england; to him and his brother hardacnut who was in denmark.” this election was opposed unsuccessfully by godwine and the men of wessex.

the chronicle contains a very important entry under the date 1014. upon the death of swegen, we are told that his army elected cnut king: “but all the witan who were in england, both clerical and lay, decided to send after king æðelred[543]; and they declared that no lord could be dearer to them than their natural lord, if he would

218

rule them more justly than he had done before. then the king sent his son eádweard hither, with his messengers, and commanded them to greet all his people[544]; and he said that he would be a loving lord to them, and amend all those things which they all abhorred; and that everything which had been said or done against him should be forgiven, on condition that they all, with one consent and without deceit, would be obedient to him. then they established full friendship, by word and pledge on either side, and declared every danish king an outlaw from england for ever.”

cnut nevertheless succeeded; but after the extinction of his short-lived dynasty, we are told that all the people elected eádweard the confessor king. “1041. this year died hardacnut.... and before he was buried, all the people elected eádweard king, at london.” another manuscript reads:—“1042. this year died hardacnut, as he stood at his drink.... and all the people then received eádweard for their king, as was his true natural right.”

one more quotation from a manuscript of the saxon chronicle shall conclude this head:—“1066. in this year was hallowed the minster at westminster on childermas-day (dec. 28th). and king eádweard died on the eve of twelfth-day, and he was buried on twelfth-day in the newly consecrated church at westminster. and harald the earl

219

succeeded to the kingdom of england, even as the king had granted it unto him, and men also had elected him thereto. and he was consecrated king on twelfth-day.”

the witan of england had met to aid in the consecration of westminster abbey, and, as was their full right, proceeded to elect a king, on eádweard’s decease.

5. the witan had the power to depose the king, if his government was not conducted for the benefit of the people.

it is obvious that the very existence of this power would render its exercise an event of very rare occurrence. anglosaxon history does however furnish one clear example. in 755, the witan of wessex, exasperated by the illegal conduct of king sigeberht, deposed him from the royal dignity, and elected his relative cynewulf in his stead. the fact is thus related by different authorities. the chronicle[545] says very shortly:—“this year, cynewulf and the witan of the westsaxons deprived his kinsman sigeberht of his kingdom, except hampshire[546], for his unjust deeds.”

florence tells the same story, but in other words[547]:—“cynewulf, a scion of the royal race of cerdic, with the counsel of the westsaxon primates, removed their king sigeberht from his realm, on account of the multitude of his iniquities, and

220

reigned in his place: however he granted to him one province, which is called hampshire.”

æðelweard[548], whose royal descent and usual pedantry conspire to make his account of the matter somewhat hazy, says:—“so, after the lapse of a year from the time when sigeberht began to reign, cynewulf invaded his realm and took it from him; and he drew the sapientes of all the western country after him, apparently, on account of the irregular acts of the said king,” etc.

the fullest account however of the whole transaction is given by henry of huntingdon[549], who very frequently shows a remarkable acquaintance with saxon authorities which are now lost, but from which he translates and quotes at considerable length. these are his words:—“sigeberht, the kinsman of the aforesaid king, succeeded him, but he held the kingdom for a short time only: for being swelled up and insolent through the successes of his predecessor, he became intolerable even unto his own people. but when he continued to ill-use them in every way, and either twisted the laws to his own advantage, or turned them aside for his advantage, cumbra, the noblest of his ealdormen, at the petition of the whole people, brought their complaints before the savage king. whom, for attempting to persuade him to rule his people more mercifully, and setting his inhumanity aside to show himself an object of love to god and man, he shortly after commanded to be put to an impious

221

death: and becoming still more fierce and intolerable to his people, he aggravated his tyranny. in the beginning of the second year of his reign, sigeberht the king continuing incorrigible in his pride and iniquity, the princes and people of the whole realm collected together; and by provident deliberation and unanimous consent of all he was expelled from the throne. but cynewulf, an excellent young prince, of the royal race, was elected to be king[550].”

i have little doubt that an equally formal, though hardly equally justifiable, proceeding severed mercia from eádwig’s kingdom, and reconstituted it as a separate state under eádgar[551]; and lastly from simeon of durham we learn that the northumbrian alchred was deposed and exiled, with the counsel and consent of all his people[552].

6. the king and the witan had power to appoint prelates to vacant sees.

as many of the witan were the most eminent of the clergy, and the people might be fairly considered

222

to be represented by the secular members of the body, these elections were perhaps more canonical than the frankish, and assuredly more so than those which take place under our system by congé d’élire. the necessary examples will be found in the saxon chronicle, an. 971, 995, 1050. but one may be mentioned at length. in 959 dúnstán was elected archbishop of canterbury “consilio sapientum[553].”

7. they had also power to regulate ecclesiastical matters, appoint fasts and festivals, and decide upon the levy and expenditure of ecclesiastical revenue.

the great question of monachism which convulsed the church and kingdom in the tenth century, was several times brought before the consideration of the witan, who, both clerical and lay, were very much divided upon the subject. this perhaps is a sufficient reason why no formal act of the gemót was ever passed on the subject, and the solution of the problem was left to the bishops in their several cathedrals: but no reader of saxon history can be ignorant that it was frequently brought before the gemót, and that it was the cause of deep and frequent dissensions among the witan[554]. the festival days of st. eádweard and st. dúnstán were fixed by the authority of the witan on the 15th kal. april and 14th kal. june respectively[555]; and the

223

laws contain many provisions for the due keeping of the sabbath, and the strict celebration of fasts and festivals[556]. the levying of church-shots, soul-shots, light-alms, plough-alms, tithes, and a variety of other church imposts, the payment of which could not be otherwise legally binding upon the laity, was made law by frequently repeated chapters in the acts of the witan: these are much too numerous to need specification. they direct the amount to be paid, the time of payment, and the penalties to be inflicted on defaulters: nay, they actually direct the mode in which such payments when received should be distributed and applied by the receivers[557]. they establish, as law of the land, the prohibitions to marry within certain degrees of relationship: and lastly they adopt and sanction many regulations of the fathers and bishops, respecting the life and conversation of priests and deacons, canons, monks and religious women. on all these points it is sufficient to give a general reference to the laws, which are full of regulations even to the minutest details.

8. the king and the witan had power to levy taxes for the public service.

i have observed in an earlier chapter of this work that the estates of the freeman were bound to make certain settled payments. these may at some time or other have been voluntary, but there can be no doubt that they did ultimately become compulsory

224

payments. they are the cyninges gafol, payable on the hide, and may possibly be the cyninges útware, and cyninges geban of the laws, the contributions directes by which a man’s station in society was often measured. now in the time of ini, we find the witan regulating the amount of this tax or gafol, in barley, at six pounds weight upon the hide[558]. again, under the extraordinary circumstances of the danish war under æðelred, when it became almost customary to buy off the invaders, we find them authorising the levy of large sums for that purpose[559], and also for the maintenance of fleets[560]: these payments, once known by the name of danegeld, and which in 1018 amounted to the enormous sum of 82,500 pounds[561], were after thirty-nine years’ continuance finally abolished by eádweard[562].

9. the king and his witan had power to raise land and sea forces when occasion demanded.

the king always possessed of himself the right to call out the ban or armed militia of the freemen: he also possessed the right of commanding at all times the service of his comites and their vassals: but the armed force of the freemen could only be

225

kept on foot for a definite period, and probably within definite limits. it seems therefore that when the pressure of extraordinary circumstances called for more than common efforts, and the nation was to be urged to unusual exertions, the authority of the witan was added to that of the king; and that much more extensive levies were made than by merely calling out the hereban or landsturm. and this particularly applies to naval armaments, which were hardly a part of the constitutional force, at all events not to any great extent[563]. accordingly we find in the chronicle that the king and the witan commanded armaments to be made against the danes in 999, and at the same time directed a particular service to be sung in the churches. we learn distinctly from another event that the disposal of this force depended upon the popular will: for when svein, king of the danes, made application to eádweard the confessor for a naval force in aid of his war against magnus of norway, and godwine recommended compliance, we find that it was refused because earl leófríc of coventry, and all the people, with one voice opposed it[564].

10. the witan possessed the power of recommending, assenting to, and guaranteeing grants of lands, and of permitting the conversion of folcland into bócland, and vice versâ.

with regard to the first part of this assertion, it will be sufficient to refer to any page of the codex

226

diplomaticus ævi saxonici: it is impossible almost to find a single grant in that collection which does not openly profess to have been made by the king, “cum consilio, consensu et licentia procerum,” or similar expressions. and the necessity for such consent will appear intelligible when we consider that these grants must be understood, either to be direct conversions of folcland (fiscal or public property) into bócland (private estates), beneficiary into hereditary tenure; or, that they contain licences to free particular lands from the ancient, customary dues to the state. in both cases the public revenue, of which king and witan were fiduciary administrators, was concerned: inasmuch as nearly every estate, transferred from folcland to bócland, became just so much withdrawn from the general stock of ways and means. only in the case where lands were literally exchanged from one category into the other, did the state sustain no loss. of this we have evidence in a charter of the year 858[565]. the king and wulfláf his thane exchanged lands in kent, æðelberht receiving an estate of five plough-lands at mersham and giving five plough-lands at wassingwell. the king then freed the land at wassingwell in as ample degree as that at mersham had been freed; that is, from every description of service, or impost, except the three inevitable burthens, of military service, and repair of fortifications and bridges. and having done so, he made the land at mersham, folcland, i. e., imposed the burthens upon it.

227

that this is a just view of the powers of the witan in respect to the folcland, further appears from instances where the king and the witan, on one part, as representatives of the nation for that purpose, make grants to the king in his individual capacity. in 847, a case of this kind occurred: æðelwulf of wessex obtained twenty hides of land at ham, as an estate of inheritance, from his witan[566]. the words used are very explicit: “i æðelwulf, by god’s aid king of the westsaxons, with the consent and licence of my bishops and my princes, have caused a certain small portion of land, consisting of twenty hides, to be described by its boundaries, to me, as an estate of inheritance.” and again: “these are the boundaries of those twenty hides which æðelwulf’s senators granted to him at ham.” we learn that offa, king of the mercians, had in a similar manner caused one hundred and ten hides in kent to be given to him and his heirs as an estate of bócland[567], which he had afterwards left to the monastery at bedford. and this is a peculiarly valuable record, because it was only by conquest that offa and his witan could have obtained a right to dispose of lands beyond the limits of his own kingdom. between 901 and 909 the witan of the westsaxons booked a very small portion of land to ælfred’s son eádweard, for the site of his monastery at winchester[568]. in 963 we have another instance: eádgár caused five hides to be given him at peatanige as an estate of

228

inheritance. the terms of the document are unusual: he says, “i have a portion of land,” etc., but he frees it from all burthens but the three, and renders it heritable. the rubric says: “this is the charter of five hides at peatanige, which are eádgár’s the king’s, during his day and after his day, to have, or to give to whom it pleaseth him best[569].” again in 964, the same prince gave to his wife ælfðrýð ten hides at aston in berkshire, as an estate of inheritance, “consilio satellitum, pontificum, comitum, militum[570].” it is obvious that in all these cases the grants were made out of public land, and were not the private estates of the king.

11. the witan possessed the power of adjudging the lands of offenders and intestates to be forfeit to the king.

this power applied to bócland, as well as folcland, and was exercised in cases which are by no means confined to the few enumerated in the laws. indeed the latter may very probably refer to nothing but the chattels or personal property of the offender; while the real estate might be transferred to the king, by the solemn act of the witan. a few examples will make this clear.

ælfred, condemned for treason or rebellion against æðelstán, lost his lands by the judgment of the witan, who bestowed them upon the king[571]. in 1002 a lady forfeited her lands for her incontinence;

229

the king became seised of them, obviously by the act of the gemót, for he calls it vulgaris traditio[572]. again, the lands of certain people which had been forfeited for theft, are described as having been granted to the king, “iusto valde iudicio totius populi, seniorum et primatum[573].”

the case of intestacy is proved by a charter of ecgberht in 825. he gave fifteen hides at aulton to winchester, and made title in these words. “now this land, a very faithful reeve of mine called burghard formerly possessed by my grant: but he afterwards dying childless, left the land without a will, and he had no survivors: and so the land with all its boundaries was restored to me, its former possessor, by judicial decree of my optimates[574].”

other examples may be found in the quotations given in page 52 of this volume; to which i may add a case of forfeiture for suicide[575].

12. lastly, the witan acted as a supreme court of justice, both in civil and criminal causes.

the fact of important trials being decided by the witena gemót is obvious from a very numerous list of charters recording the result of such trials, and printed in the codex diplomaticus. it is perfectly unnecessary to give examples; they occur continually in the pages of that work. the documents are in great detail, giving the names of the parties, the heads of the case, sometimes the very steps in the trial, and always recording the place and date

230

of the gemót, and the names of those who presided therein.

the proceedings of the witan as a court of criminal jurisprudence, are well exemplified in the case of earl godwine and his family daring their patriotic struggle for power with the foreign minions of eádweard, and the northern earls, the hereditary enemies of their house. eustace the count of boulogne, then on a visit to eádweard, having with a small armed retinue attempted violence against some of the inhabitants of dover, was set upon by the townsmen, and after a severe loss hardly succeeded in making his escape. he hastened to gloucester, where eádweard then held his court, and laid his complaint before the king. godwine, as earl of kent, was commanded to set out with his forces, and inflict summary punishment upon the burghers who had dared to maltreat a relative of the king. but the stern old statesman saw matters in a very different light: he probably found no reason to punish the inhabitants of one of his best towns, for an act of self defence, especially one which had read a severe lesson to the foreign adventurers, who abused the weakness of an incapable prince, and domineered over the land. he therefore flatly refused, and withdrew from gloucester to join his sons harald and swegen who lay at beverston and langtree with a considerable power. the king being reinforced by a well-appointed contingent from the northern earldoms, affairs threatened to be brought to a bloody termination. the conduct of godwine and his family had been represented

231

to eádweard in the most unfavourable colours, and the demand they made that the obnoxious strangers should be given up to them, only aggravated his deep resentment. however for a time peace was maintained, hostages were given on either side, and a witena gemót was proclaimed, to meet in london, at the end of a fortnight, september 21st, 1048. on the arrival of the earls in southwark, they found that a greatly superior force from the commands of leofríc, sigeward and raulf awaited them: desertion thinned their numbers, and when the king demanded back his hostages, they were compelled to comply. godwine and harald were now summoned to appear before the gemót and make answer to what should be brought against them. they demanded, though probably with little expectation of obtaining, a safe conduct to and from the gemót, which was refused; and as they very properly declined under such circumstances to appear, five days were allowed them to leave england altogether.

it is probable that the strictly legal forms were followed on this occasion, although the composition of the gemót was such that justice could not have been done. the same observation will apply to another witena gemót holden in london, after godwine’s triumphant return to england, though with a very different result. before this assembly the earl appeared, easily cleared himself of all offences laid to his charge, and obtained the outlawry and banishment from england of all the frenchmen whose pernicious councils had put dissension

232

between the king and his people. other examples might be given of outlawry, and even heavier sentences, as blinding, if not death, pronounced by the high court of the witan. but as these are all the result of internal dissensions, they resemble rather the violence of impeachments by an irresistible majority, than the calm, impassive judgments of a judicial assembly[576].

such were the powers of the witena gemót, and it must be confessed that they were extensive. of the manner of the deliberations or the forms of business we know little, but it is not likely that they were very complicated. we may conclude that the general outline of the proceedings was something of the following order. on common occasions the king summoned his witan to attend him at some royal vill, at christmas, or at easter, for festive and ceremonial as well as business purposes. on extraordinary occasions he issued summonses according to the nature of the exigency, appointing the time and place of meeting. when assembled, the witan commenced their session by attending divine service[577], and formally professing their adherence to the catholic faith[578]. the king then brought his propositions before them, in the frankish manner[579], and after due deliberation they were accepted, modified, or rejected. the reeves, and perhaps on occasion officers specially designated

233

for that service[580], carried the chapters down into the several counties, and there took a wed or pledge from the freemen that they would abide by what had been enacted. this last fact, important to us in more respects than one, is substantiated by the following evidence. toward the close of the judicia civitatis londoniae (cap. 10), passed in the reign of æðelstán, and subsidiary to the acts of various gemóts held by him, we find:—“all the witan gave their pledges together to the archbishop at thundersfield, when ælfheáh stybb and brihtnóð, odda’s son, came to meet the gemót by the king’s command, that each reeve should take the pledge in his own shire, that they would all hold the frið, as king æðelstán and the witan had counselled it, first at greátanleá, and again at exeter, and afterwards at feversham, and the fourth time at thundersfield,” etc.

we have also a very remarkable document addressed to the same king, apparently upon receipt of the acts of the council at feversham, by the men of kent, denoting their acceptance of the same. they commence by saying:—“dearest! thy bishops of kent, and all the thanes of kentshire, earls and churls[581], return thanks to thee their

234

dearest lord, for what thou hast been pleased to ordain respecting our peace, and to enquire and

235

consult concerning our advantage, since great was the need thereof for us all, both rich and poor.

236

and this we have taken in hand, with all the diligence we could, by the aid of those witan [sapientes] whom thou didst send unto us,” etc[582].

it is plain from the preceding passage that the witan gave their wed to observe, and cause to be observed, the laws they had enacted[583]. eádgár says, “i command my geréfan, upon my friendship, and by all they possess, to punish every one that will not perform this, and who by any neglect shall break the wed of my witan.” this seems to imply that the people were generally bound by the acts of the witan, and their pledge or wed; and if it were so, it would naturally involve the theory of representation. but this deduction will not stand.

the whole principle of teutonic legislation is, and always was, that the law is made by the constitution of the king, and the consent of the people[584]: and we have seen one way in which that consent was obtained, viz. by sending the capitula down into the provinces or shires, and taking the wed in the shiremoot. the passage in the text seems to presuppose an interchange of oaths and

237

pledges between the king and witan themselves; and even those who had no standing of their own in the folcmót or scírgemót, were required to be bound by personal consent. the lord was just as much commanded to take oath and pledge of his several dependents (the hired men, familiares, or people of his household), as the sheriff was required to take them of the free shire-thanes[585]. of course this excludes all idea of representation in our modern sense of the word, because with us, promulgation by the parliament is sufficient, and the constituent is bound without any further ceremony by the act of him whom he has sent in his own place. but the teutons certainly did not elect their representatives as we elect ours, with full power to judge, decide for, and bind us, and therefore it was right and necessary that the laws when made should be duly ratified and accepted by all the people.

although the dignified clergy, the ealdormen and geréfan, and the þegnas both in counties and boroughs, appear to have constituted the witena gemót properly so called, there is still reason to suppose that the people themselves, or some of them, were very often present. in fact a system gradually framed as i suppose that of our forefathers to have been, and indebted very greatly to accident for its form, must have possessed a very considerable elasticity. the people who were in the neighbourhood, who happened to be collected in arms during a sitting of the witan, or who thought it worth while to attend their meeting,

238

were very probably allowed to do so, and to exercise at least a right of conclamation[586],—a right which must daily become rarer, as the freemen gradually disappeared, and the number of landowners, dependent upon and represented by lords, as rapidly increased. in conclusion a few passages may be cited, which seem to render it probable that the people, when on the spot, did take some part in the business, as i have already mentioned with respect to the frankish levies in the campus madius of charlemagne. but it must also be borne in mind that such a case ought to be looked upon as accidental, rather than necessary, and that a meeting of the witan did not require the formality of an acceptance by the people on the spot, to render its acts obligatory. it was enough that the thanes of the gemót should pass, and the thanes of the scír accept the law. indeed it could not be otherwise; for as the heads of all the more important social aggregations of the free, and the lords whose men were represented by them even in courts of justice, were the members of the gemót, their decisions must have been, strictly considered, the real decisions of the populus, or franchise-bearing people.

beda, relating the discussion which took place

239

respecting the celebration of easter, and which was held in the presence of oswiu and alhfrið of northumberland, and wilfrið’s successful defence of the roman custom, adds: “when the king had said these words, all who sat or stood around assented: and abandoning the less perfect institution, they hastened to adopt what they recognized as a better one[587].” again the deposition of sigeberht is stated to have taken place in an assembly of the proceres and populus, the princes and people of the whole realm[588]. a doubtful charter of ini, a.d. 725, is said to be consented to “cum praesentia populationis[589],” by which words are meant either the witan or the people of wessex. in 804 æðelríc’s title-deeds were confirmed before a gemót at clofesho: the charter recites that archbishop æðelheard gave judgment, with the witness of king cóenwulf and his optimates, before all the synod or meeting: whence it is clear that others were present besides the optimates or witan strictly so called[590]. on the 28th of may 924 a gemót was held at winchester, “tota populi generalitate,” as the charter witnesses[591], and in 931 another at worðig, “tota plebis generalitate[592].” æðelstán in 938 declares that certain lands had been forfeited for theft, by the just judgment of all the people, and the seniores and primates; and that the original charters were cancelled by a decree of all the people[593].

240

but whether expressions of this kind were intended to denote the actual presence of the people on the spot; or whether populus is used in a strict and technical sense—that sense which is confined to those who enjoy the full franchise, those who form part of the πολιτευμα,—or finally whether the assembly of the witan making laws is considered to represent in our modern form an assembly of the whole people,—it is clear that the power of self-government is recognized in the latter.

in order to facilitate reference to the important facts with which this chapter deals, i have added to it a list of witena gemóts, with here and there a few remarks upon the business transacted in them. they do not nearly exhaust the number that must have been held, but still they form a respectable body of evidence; and we may perhaps be justly surprised, not that so little, but that so much has survived. we need not lament that the present forms and powers of our parliament are not those which existed a thousand years ago, as long as we recognize in them only the matured development of an old and useful principle. we shall not appeal to anglosaxon custom to justify the various points of the charter; but we may still be proud to find in their practice the germ of institutions which we have, throughout all vicissitudes, been taught to cherish as the most valuable safeguards of our peace as well as our freedom. truly there are few nations whose parliamentary history has so ample a foundation as our own.

241

the witena gemóts of the saxons.

æðelbert of kent, a.d. 596-605.—the promulgation of the laws of æðelberht took place during the life of augustine. this fixes their date between 596, when he arrived in england, and 605, when he died. beda tells us that these laws were enacted by the advice of the witan, “cum consilio sapientium[594].” we may therefore conclude that a gemót was held in kent for the purpose: and from the contents of the laws themselves, it is obvious that the roman clergy filled an important place therein. they had probably stepped into the position of the pagan priesthood, and improved it.

eáduuini of northumberland, a.d. 627.—the first witena gemót of which we have any detailed record was holden in 627, near the city of york, wherein no less important business was discussed than the desertion of paganism and reception of christianity, by the people of northumberland. from beda[595] we learn that this step was not ventured without the gravest deliberation; and that eáduuini had taken good care to sound the most influential of his nobles, before he called a public meeting to decide upon the question. indeed the parts in this great drama appear to have been arranged beforehand. the interesting account given by beda[596] is to this effect. eáduuini had determined to embrace christianity, but still he was not contented, or would not venture, to do this alone. he wished to extend the blessings of the new faith to his

242

subjects; perhaps also to avoid the difficulties which might result from his conversion, while the rest of the people remained pagans. to the exhortations of the missionary paulinus he rejoined, “suscipere quidem se fidem quam docebat, et velle, et debere ... verum adhuc cum amicis, principibus et consiliariis suis, sese de hoc collaturum esse dicebat; ut si illi eadem cum illo sentire vellent, omnes pariter in fonte vitae christo consecrarentur. et annuente paulino, fecit ut dixerat. habito enim cum sapientibus consilio, sciscitabatur singillatim ab omnibus, qualis sibi doctrina haec eatenus inaudita, et novus divinitatis qui praedicabatur cultus videretur.” the chief of his priests, cóefi, immediately commenced an attack upon the ancient religion, and was followed by other nobles, one of whose speeches, the earliest specimen of english parliamentary eloquence, is yet on record[597]. “his similia et caeteri maiores natu ac regis consiliarii, divinitus admoniti, prosequebantur.” paulinus was now invited to expound at greater length the doctrines which he recommended. at the close of his address cóefi declared himself a convert, and proposed the destruction of the ancient fanes. eáduuini now professed himself a christian, and in turn demanded whose duty it was to profane the pagan altars. this cóefi at once assumed to himself, and taking the most conspicuous means to demonstrate to the people (who, the historian says, thought him mad,) his apostasy from the old creed, hurled his lance into the sacred enclosure, and commanded its immediate destruction. the scene of this daring act was godmundingahám, not far from the british delgovitia, and now godmundham or goodmanham. the king then as speedily as possible, “citato opere,” built a wooden basilica in the city of york, in which he was solemnly baptized on the twelfth of april, being easter-day. and thus, says the historian, eáduuini

243

became a christian, “cum cunctis gentis suae nobilibus ac plebe perplurima[598].”

wulfhari of mercia, a.d. 657.—in this year a witena gemót was probably held for the endowment and consecration of saxwulf’s monastery at peterborough. this the king is stated to have done by the advice, and with the consent, of all the witan of his kingdom, both clerical and lay[599]. the charter in the saxon chronicle is a late forgery, but throws no well-grounded doubt upon the fact.

ósuuiu of northumberland, a.d. 662.—a meeting was held this year at streoneshalh, to bring about uniformity of paschal observance, tonsure, and other ecclesiastical details. it was presided over by osuuiu and alhfrið[600].

ecgberht of kent, a.d. 667.—a gemót was probably held in kent, and wighard was elected archbishop of canterbury[601].

archbishop theodore, a.d. 673.—in this year was held the synod or gemót of hertford[602]. beda has preserved its ecclesiastical acts. the seventh provision is an important one, viz. that similar meetings should be held twice in every year. but this appearing inconvenient, it was agreed that there should be one, on the first of august yearly at clofeshoas.

archbishop theodore, a.d. 680.—in this year was held the gemót at hǽðfeld, in the presence of the kings of northumberland, mercia, eastanglia and kent. its ecclesiastical acts are preserved[603]: they are particularly directed against the heresy of eutyches. but

244

there was a witena gemót at the same time probably to sanction the decision of the clergy.

ecgfrið of northumberland, a.d. 684.—there was a gemót at twyford, on the river alne, and cúðberht was elected bishop of hexham[604].

æðelred of mercia, a.d. 685.—a gemót was held on the thirtieth of july at berhford, now burford in gloucestershire. berhtwald the subregulus and æðelred were probably both present[605].

wihtraed of kent, a.d. 696.—immediately upon wihtraed’s accession[606] he held a great council, “mycel consilium,” or gemót of his witan, to settle the ecclesiastical and secular difficulties which had arisen during the civil wars of his predecessors and his own struggle for the throne. the gemót was held at beorganstede, now berstead in kent. its acts are extant in the laws which yet go under wihtraed’s name[607]. another gemót of wihtraed’s, said by the chronicle[608] to have been held in 694 at baccanceld, now bapchild, in kent, confirmed the liberties of the kentish clergy.

ini of wessex, a.d. 704.—a witena gemót was held by ini at eburleáh, in which, with the consent of his witan, he gave certain privileges to the monasteries of wessex[609]. its acts were signed by the principes, senatores, iudices and patricii present. we learn also from a charter of aldhelm[610], that before 705, a council had been held upon the banks of the river woder, which is possibly the “synodus suae gentis” mentioned by beda[611].

245

ósraed of northumberland, a.d. 705.—upon the death of aldfrið in 705, a gemót was held upon the banks of the nidd, and after long debates bishop wilfrið was restored to his see and possessions[612].

a.d. 710.—in this year a gemót appears to have been held, in which sussex was erected into a separate see, and severed from the diocese of winchester[613].

archbishop nóðhelm, a.d. 734-737.—difficulties having arisen about the possession and patronage of certain monasteries, the case was referred to and decided by a synod, “sancta sacerdotalis concilii synodus,” which must have met between 734-737. it seems to have been purely ecclesiastical, and its acts are signed only by the bishops who were present[614]. yet as its judgment involved a question of property, and title to lands, i presume that the case was laid before a mixed gemót, sitting very possibly in different chambers. if so, the record we have is that of the clerical house only.

æðelbald of mercia, a.d. 742.—in this year a great council, “magnum concilium,” was held at clofeshoas, under æðelbald, and cúðbeorht, archbishop of canterbury. it took into consideration the state of the church; but it was clearly a witena gemót, and its acts are signed by clerks and laymen indifferently[615].

æðelbald of mercia, a.d. 749.—a witena gemót was held at godmundes leáh in this year. ecclesiastical liberties were again provided for[616].

a.d. 755.—a witena gemót in wessex must have been held in this year, for the deposing of sigebeorht and election of cynewulf to the throne[617].

246

offa of mercia, a.d. 780.—a gemót called “synodale conciliabulum” was held this year at brentford. it transacted various business of a secular character[618].

a.d. 782.—a gemót was held at acleáh, now ockley in surrey[619].

offa of mercia, a.d. 785.—in this year was held the stormy synod of cealchýð, in which the province of canterbury was partitioned; and the archbishopric of lichfield founded[620]. it was clearly a witena gemót; as offa caused his son ecgferhð to be elected king by the meeting.

a.d. 787.—in this year there was another gemót; “synodalis conventus,” at ockley[621].

offa of mercia, a.d. 788.—a gemót was held at cealchýð[622]. and in the same year; according to the chronicle and florence[623]; but one year sooner according to simeon dunelmensis[624], was held the synod of pincanhealh in northumberland.

offa of mercia, a.d. 789.—in this year another gemót was held at cealchýð, where a good deal of secular business was transacted[625]. in the second document cited in the note it is called “pontificale conciliabulum,” and this charter is signed only by the king and the bishops.

another gemót is also said to have been held at ockley[626]; but the known error of two years in the dates of the chronicle may make us suspect that this really met in 791.

offa of mercia; a.d. 790.—a great gemót was held this year in london; on whitsunday[627].

247

offa of mercia, a.d. 793.—a gemót at cealchýð, called “conventus synodalis”[628]. also about this time a gemót at verulam, “concilium episcoporum et optimatum,”[629]

offa of mercia, a.d. 794.—a gemót at clofeshoas, called “synodus,” and “concilium synodale”[630].

ecgferhð of mercia, a.d. 796.—a gemót at cealchýð, called probably in consequence of offa’s death, and for reformation of affairs in the church[631].

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 798.—a gemót, called “synodus,” the place of which is not known. the business recorded is merely secular[632]. before the signatures occur the words: “haec sunt nomina episcoporum ac principum qui hoc mecum in synodo consentientes subscripserunt.” the signatures comprise the names of several laics,—a plain proof that the word synodus is not confined to ecclesiastical meetings. another, or perhaps the same, at baccanceld, bapchild, in kent, where the clergy made a declaration of liberties[633]. another and very solemn one at clofeshoas[634].

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 799.—a gemót of the witan was held this year at colleshyl, probably coleshill in berkshire[635].

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 799-802.—between these two years there was a gemót, called “synodale conciliabulum,” at cealchýð, in which secular business was transacted. the signature of the king to one of its acts is double; first at the head of the clergy, and then again at the head of the lay nobles[636].

248

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 803.—in the year 803 was held a memorable synod at clofeshoas, which lasted from the ninth till the twelfth of october. affairs of great importance were discussed. the principal object of the meeting was to restore the ancient splendour of canterbury by the abrogation of the archiepiscopal see at lichfield, and further to secure the liberties of the church. we have two solemn acts, dated on the twelfth of october[637]: the signatures are exclusively those of clerics. the second of those documents deserves the highest attention, as the signatures may be taken to represent the members of a full convocation of the clergy, called for a most important purpose. but it is nevertheless certain that a general meeting of the witan took place at the same time, for on the sixth of october they heard and determined causes relating to landed property, and various laymen signed the acts[638]. moreover an archbishopric established by a witena gemót could only be abrogated by another,—not by a mere assemblage of clergymen, however dignified and influential they might be.

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 804.—there was a “synodus” in this year at clofeshoas, the nature of the business transacted in which and before whom transacted, appears from these words following[639]:—“anno ab incarnatione christi 804, indictione duodecima, ego æðelríc filius æðelmundi cum conscientia synodali invitatus ad synodum, et in iudicio stare, in loco qui dicitur clofeshoh, cum libris et ruris, id est, æt westmynster, quod prius propinqui mei tradiderunt mihi et donaverunt, ibi æðelheardus archiepiscopus mihi regebat atque iudicaverat, cum testimonio coenwulfi regis, et optimatibus eius, coram omni synodo, quando scripturas meas perscrutarent, ut liber essem terram meam atque libellos dare quocumque volui.” he

249

had been regularly summoned to appear before the synodus, as a court of justice.

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 805.—a witena gemót was held at ockley, a favourite locality[640].

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 810.—another gemót, “sancta synodus,” sat at ockley, and decided a lawsuit between æðelhelm, and beornðryð, the widow of óswulf, duke of kent[641].

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 811.—a great gemót, “concilium pergrande,” was held this year in london[642]. in the same year a great gemót was collected at wincelcumbe, winchcomb in gloucestershire, for the dedication of cénwulf’s new abbey there[643].

cénwulf of mercia, a.d. 815.—in this year a gemót assembled at cealchýð[644].

beornwulf of mercia, a.d. 824.—at a meeting held this year at clofeshoas, there attended a considerable number of laymen, as well as prelates: the gemót however is called “pontificate et synodale conciliabulum[645].” in 824 there was also a gemót of wessex at ockley in surrey. ecgberht gave meon to wulfward his praefectus or geréfa. the act is signed by four geréfan[646].

beornwulf of mercia, a.d. 825.—a gemót was held also at clofeshoas in 825; this is called “sionoðlíc gemót”[647], and it is stated that there were assembled the bishops, ealdormen, and all the weotan of the nation: one act of this gemót[648] declares it to have consisted of the king, bishops, abbots, dukes, “omniumque dignitatum optimates, aecclesiasticarum vel saecularium personarum[649].”

250

the acts of this council are signed by no less than one hundred and twenty-one persons, of whom ninety-five are clerical, embracing all ranks from bishops to deacons. but one reason for this large attendance is, that as some cases of disputed title were to be decided by the gemót, these monks and clerks attended in order to make oath to the property in dispute.

ecgberht of wessex, a.d. 826.—in 825 ecgberht had taken the field against the welsh. he seems to have made various grants while in hoste. these were afterwards confirmed and reduced to writing by a gemót held in 826 at southampton[650].

ecgberht of wessex and æðelwulf of kent, a.d. 838.—in this year there was a council at kingston, under these kings, ceólnóð the archbishop, and the prelates of his province. secular affairs of great importance were settled on this occasion, and a regular treaty of peace and alliance agreed between the kentish clergy and the kings[651]. at first this was signed only by ceólnóð and the clergy; but for further confirmation it was taken to king æðelwulf at the royal vill of wilton, and there executed by the king, his dukes and thanes. another document exists in which the clergy of winchester enter into similar engagements with the kings[652].

æðelwulf of wessex, a.d. 839.—the treaty mentioned in the last article was read in a council of all the southern bishops, held at astra[653].

æðelwulf of wessex, æðelstán of kent, a.d. 844.—a gemót at canterbury, attended by the kings, the archbishop, the bishop elect of rochester, “cum principibus, ducibus, abbatibus, et cunctis generalis dignitatis optimatibus[654].”

æðelwulf of wessex, a.d. 851.—the very

251

questionable authority of ingulph mentions a witena gemót this year at cyningesbyrig[655].

burhhred of mercia, a.d. 853.—this year, the chronicle says[656], a formal application was made by the mercian king burhhred and his witan for military aid, in order to the subjugation of the northern britons. this seems to imply a regular meeting in mercia.

æðelwulf of wessex, a.d. 855.—in this year there was a gemót at winchester[657].

burhhred of mercia, a.d. 868.—in this year the mercian witan applied to those of wessex for aid against the danes. we may conclude that gemóts were held both in mercia and wessex[658].

a.d. 866-871.—we learn from king ælfred himself that there was a witena gemót at swínbeorh in some year between these limits, wherein the successions to lands, among the members of the royal family, were settled, and placed under the guarantee of the witan[659].

ælfred of wessex, a.d. 878.—in this year there was a gemót, very probably at wedmore[660], where the dane guðorm made his submission to ælfred, and where the articles of peace between the saxons and danes were settled[661].

ælfred of wessex, a.d. 880-885.—a gemót sat at langandene between these two years, and the affairs of ælfred’s family were again considered. the validity of king æðelwulf’s will was admitted, and ælfred’s settlement of his lands guaranteed[659].

æðelred, duke of mercia, a.d. 883.—in this year the witan of mercia met at risborough, under

252

æðelred their duke[662]: an interesting circumstance, inasmuch as it shows that the union with wessex did not abrogate the ancient rights, or interfere with the independent action of the mercian witan.

æðelred, duke of mercia, a.d. 888.—this gemót was held at saltwíc in worcestershire, to consult upon affairs both ecclesiastical and secular. the witan assembled from far and near[663].

æðelred, duke of mercia, a.d. 896.—another gemót of the mercians was held this year at gloucester, whose interesting acts are yet preserved[664].

æðelred, duke of mercia, a.d. 878-899.—at a gemót held between these years, and very likely at worcester, æðelred and æðelflǽd commanded a burh or fortification to be built for the people of that city, and the cathedral to be enlarged. the endowments and privileges which are granted by the instrument are extensive and instructive[665].

eádweard of wessex, a.d. 901.—the death of ælfred, and eádweard’s election probably caused an assembly of witan at winchester in this year[666], and it is likely that we still possess one of its acts[667]. this is the more probable because æðelwald, eádweard’s cousin, disputed the succession, and not only seized upon the royal vill of wimborne, which he is said to have done without the consent of the king and his witan, but broke into open rebellion, and after being acknowledged king in essex, joined the danes in northumberland, and perished in an unsuccessful battle against his countrymen.

æðelred, duke of mercia, a.d. 904.—in this year a mercian gemót was held, and duke æðelfrið obtained permission to have new charters written, his own

253

having perished by fire[668]. and a gemót of the westsaxon witan was held at the king’s hunting-seat of bicanleáh[669]. about the same period a gemót of wessex was held at exeter by eádweard[670].

eádweard of wessex, a.d. 909.—a gemót of wessex was held in 909: its acts are signed by fifty of the witan[671].

eádweard of wessex, a.d. 910.—a gemót was held in wessex this year[672]. and there appears to have been another at aylesford in kent, in which the witan gave judgment in the suit between góda and queen eádgyfu[673].

eádweard of wessex, a.d. 911.—in this year a gemót was probably held, in which terms of peace were offered to the danes in northumberland[674]. but this may possibly be only the last-named gemót in 910, as we know that eádweard was in kent in 911.

æðelstán, a.d. 925 or 926.—about this date a gemót was held by æðelstán at ham near lewes, and the suit between góda and eádgyfu was again decided by public authority[675].

æðelstán, a.d. 928.—a solemn gemót was held this year at exeter[676].

æðelstán, a.d. 930.—in this year the gemót met at nottingham. it was attended by three welsh princes, the archbishops and sixteen bishops, thirteen dukes, twelve thanes, twelve untitled persons, “et plures alii milites quorum nomina in eadem carta inseruntur.” there are fifty-eight signatures[677].

254

æðelstán, a.d. 931.—in this year several gemóts were held. first, one at luton in bedfordshire, signed by 106 persons[678]. one at worðig, “cum tota plebis generalitate[679].” one at colchester[680], and one at wellow in wilts[681].

æðelstán, a.d. 932.—there was a gemót at amesbury, said to be attended by the dukes, bishops, abbots and “patriae procuratores”[682]. also one at middleton, in which the same words occur: the signatures amount to ninety, and comprise four welsh princes, nineteen archbishops and bishops, fifteen dukes, four abbots, and forty-seven ministri or thanes[683].

æðelstán, a.d. 934.—a gemót was held in london on the seventh of june[684]; but on the twenty-eighth of may there was a great meeting at winchester, “tota populi generalitate.” the total number of names is ninety-two[685]. again on the twelfth of september, the king was at buckingham, and there held a gemót, “tota magnatorum generalitate[686].”

æðelstán, a.d. 935.—on the twenty-first of september in this year there was a gemót at dorchester, “tota optimatum generalitate[687],”

æðelstán, a.d. 937.—a gemót was held, “archiepiscopis, episcopis, ducibus et principibus anglorum insimul pro regni utilitate coadunatis[688].”

an undated charter of æðelstán[689] records a meeting of witan at abingdon: a grant was made to the abbey. the archbishop, bishops and abbots present solemnly excommunicated any one who should disturb the grant; to which

255

all the people present exclaimed, “so be it! amen.” “et dixit omnis populus qui ibi aderat, fiat, fiat. amen.” “and cwæð ealle ðæt folc ðe ðǽr embstód, sy hit swá. amen. amen.”

gemóts of æðelstán’s, the dates of which are uncertain, were held at witlanburh[690], greátanleá[691], fevershám[692], thundersfield[693], and exeter[694].

eádmund, before a.d. 946.—this prince held at least two gemóts, one at london, one at culintún, but in what years is uncertain[695].

eádred, a.d. 946.—this year there was a gemót at kingston, and king eádred was crowned[696].

eádred, a.d. 947.—in this year there was at least one witena gemót, in which the terms of peace with the northumbrian witan were arranged[697]. there were others also in mercia, and i have little doubt that all the charters bearing that date in the codex diplomaticus are really acts of such meetings.

eádred, a.d. 948.—in this year the witan of northumberland having elected a king eirik, eádred marched into their country and plundered it; upon which they again made a formal submission to him[698].

between 960-963.—in one of these years a gemót was held, but the place is unknown, and eádgyfu ultimately succeeded in putting an end to the pretensions of goda’s family[699].

eádgár, a.d. 966.—a gemót in london[700].

256

eádgár, a.d. 968.—a gemót was held at some place unknown[701].

eádgár, a.d. 973.—a great gemót was held in st. paul’s church, london[702].

eádgár, a.d. 977.—after easter (april 8th), there was held a great gemót, “ðæt mycele gemót,” at kirtlington in oxfordshire[703].

eádgár, a.d. 978.—in this year was held the celebrated gemót at calne in wiltshire, when the floor gave way and precipitated the witan to the ground[704]. there was another gemót at ceodre, now cheddar in somersetshire[705].

in addition to these eádgár held at least two gemóts, one at andover in hants, one at a place called wihtbordesstán, which we cannot now identify. in both of these meetings laws were passed[706].

æðelred, a.d. 979.—a gemót was held at kingston for the coronation of æðelred[707].

æðelred, a.d. 992.—in this year there were probably several witena gemóts for the prosecution of the danish war[708].

æðelred, a.d. 993.—in this year there was at least one gemót at winchester[709].

æðelred, a.d. 994.—a witena gemót met this year at andover[710].

æðelred, a.d. 995.—a gemót at ambresbyrig, now amesbury, where ælfríc was elected archbishop of canterbury in the place of sigeríc[711]. there seems to have

257

been another meeting in the same year, one of whose acts we still possess[712].

æðelred, a.d. 996.—in this year a gemót was held at cealchýð[713].

æðelred, a.d. 997.—this year a gemót was held in the palace at calne: “collecta haud minima sapientium multitudine, in aula villae regiae quae nuncupative a populis et calnæ vocitatur[714].” a few days later we find the gemót assembled at waneting or wantage; and here they promulgated laws which we yet possess[715]. there is a charter also, passed at this gemót[716]. a previous gemót of uncertain year had been held at brómdún[717], and another at woodstock[718].

æðelred, a.d. 998.—a gemót was held this year in london[719]; and another apparently at andover[720], where conditions of peace were ratified with anláf or olaf tryggvason[721].

æðelred, a.d. 999.—at least one gemót was held this year, to concert measures of defence against the danes[722].

a.d. 996-1001.—between these years there was a gemót at cócham, now cookham in berks, which was attended by a large assemblage of thanes from wessex and mercia, both of saxon and danish descent[723].

æðelred, a.d. 1002.—in this year the witan met and paid tribute to the danes[724]. we have still an evident act of such a gemót in this year[725].

æðelred, a.d. 1004.—in this year a meeting of the

258

eastanglian witan, under earl ulfcytel, took place. from the description i do not think it could have been an ordinary scírgemót. it shows, at any rate, that the witan were resident in the shires, and not permanently attached to the royal person or household[726].

æðelred, a.d. 1006.—another gemót was held this year, somewhere in shropshire, for the melancholy and shameful purpose of buying peace from the danes[727].

æðelred, a.d. 1008.—a gemót was held, one of whose acts we have still[728].

æðelred, a.d. 1009.—in this year we are told that the king and his heáhwitan met; but the place is unknown[729].

æðelred, a.d. 1010.—in this year a gemót was proclaimed, to concert measures of defence against the danes[730]. “ðonne beád man eallan witan tó cynge, and man sceólde ðonne rǽdan hú man ðisne eard werian sceólde.”

æðelred, a.d. 1011.—a gemót was again held for the shameful purpose of buying peace[731].

æðelred, a.d. 1012.—at easter (april 13th) there was a great meeting at london, and tribute was paid to the danes[732].

æðelred, a.d. 1014.—in this year was holden that important gemót, perhaps we might say convention, which has been mentioned in the text; when the witan, upon the death of swegen, consented again to receive æðelred as king, upon promises of amendment[733].

æðelred, a.d. 1015.—in this year was the great

259

gemót of oxford, “ðæt mycel gemót,” and sigeferð and morcar the powerful earls of the north were slain[734].

it is uncertain in what years we must place the promulgation of æðelred’s laws[735], at enham, and haba[736]; and others without date or place.

eádmund írensída, a.d. 1016.—in this year there must have been various meetings of the witan, if tumultuous and armed assemblages can claim the name of witena gemóts at all. the witan in london elected eádmund king; and there was a meeting at olney, near deerhurst, where the kingdom was partitioned[737].

a.d. 1016-1020.—probably between these years was the great gemót at winchester, in which cnut promulgated his laws[738].

cnut, a.d. 1020.—in this year was a great gemót at cirencester[739].

harald haranfot, a.d. 1036.—upon the death of cnut, there was a gemót at oxford, and harald was elected king[740].

hardacnut, a.d. 1042.—in this year there was probably a gemót at sutton[741]. and another on hardacnut’s death, when all the people chose eádweard the confessor to be king[742].

260

eádweard, a.d. 1043.—a witena gemót was held at winchester, april 3rd, and eádweard was crowned[743].

eádweard, a.d. 1044.—there was a gemót, “generale concilium,” in london; the only business recorded is the election of manni, abbot of evesham[744]; but there is a charter[745].

eádweard, a.d. 1045.—there seems to have been a gemót this year[746].

eádweard, a.d. 1046.—a gemót, the place of which is unknown[747].

eádweard, a.d. 1047.—on the 10th of march this year there was “mycel gemót” in london[748].

eádweard, a.d. 1048.—a gemót sat on the 8th of september at gloucester[749]; and on the 21st of september, another met in london, and outlawed the family of earl godwine.

eádweard, a.d. 1050.—there was a great gemót in london[750].

eádweard, a.d. 1052, 1053.—a gemót, place unknown[751].

eádweard, a.d. 1055.—a gemót in london[752].

eádweard, a.d. 1065.—there was a great gemót at northampton[753], another was held at oxford on the 28th of october[753], and lastly at christmas in london[753]. at this eádweard dedicated westminster abbey, and dying on the 5th of january, 1066, the assembled witan elected harald king.

261

having now completed this list, which must be confessed to be but an imperfect one, i do not scruple to express my belief that every charter in the codex diplomaticus, which is not merely a private will or private settlement, is the genuine act of some witena gemót: and that we thus possess a long and interesting series of records, enabling us to follow the action of the saxon parliaments from the very cradle of our monarchy.

472. this is not hypothetical or imaginary. the settlements in iceland were positively made upon this principle, and by it the subsequent divisions of the land were regulated.

473. the acts, if we may so call them, of an anglosaxon parliament, are a series of treaties of peace, between all the associations which make up the state; a continual revision and renewal of the alliances offensive and defensive, of all the free men. they are universally mutual contracts for the maintenance of the frið or peace. those who chose to do so, might withdraw from this contract, but they must take the consequence. the witan had no money to vote, except in very rare and extreme cases; consequently their business was confined to regulating the terms on which the frið could be maintained.

474. germ. xi. xii. xiii.

475. what follows is abstracted from hincmar, epistola de ordine palatii, as cited and commented upon by dönniges, p. 74, etc.

476. “ut populus interrogetur de capitulis quae in lege noviter addita sunt. et postquam omnes consenserint, subscriptiones suas in ipsis capitulis faciant.” pertz, iii. 115, § 19.

477. hincmar, c. 30.

478. these persons were in the strictest sense of the word προβούλοι, and their acts προβουλεύματα. no doubt their body comprised the principal officers engaged in the administration of the state.

479. hincmar, c. 33.

480. “sed nec illud praetermittendum, quomodo, si tempus serenum erat, extra, sin autem intra, diversa loca distincta erant; ubi et hi abundanter segregati semotim, et caetera multitudo separatim residere potuissent, prius tamen caeterae inferiores personae interesse minime potuissent. quae utraque seniorum susceptacula sic in duobus divisa erant, ut primo omnes episcopi, abbates, vel huiusmodi honorificentiores clerici, absque ulla laicorum commixtione congregarentur; similiter comites vel huiusmodi principes sibimet honorificabiliter a caetera multitudine primo mane segregarentur, quousque tempus, sive praesente sive absente rege, occurrerent. et tunc praedicti seniores more solito, clerici ad suam, laici vero ad suam constitutam curiam, subselliis similiter honorificabiliter praeparatis, convocarentur. qui cum separati a caeteris essent, in eorum manebat potestate, quando simul, vel quando separati residerent, prout eos tractandae causae qualitas docebat, sive de spiritalibus, sive de saecularibus, seu etiam commixtis. similiter, si propter aliquam vescendi [? noscendi] vel investigandi causam quemcunque vocare voluissent, et [? an] re comperta discederet, in eorum voluntate manebat.” hincmar, c. 35.

481. “interim vero, quo haec in regis absentia agebantur, ipse princeps reliquae multitudini in suscipiendis muneribus, salutandis proceribus, confabulando rarius visis, compatiendo senioribus, congaudendo iunioribus, et caetera his similia tam in spiritalibus, quamque et in saecularibus occupatus erat. ita tamen, quotienscunque segregatorum voluntas esset, ad eos veniret,” etc. hincmar, c. 35.

482. easter and christmas were usual times for the meetings of the witan, and during the mercian period, cloveshoo was frequently the place where they assembled. doubts have been lavished, upon the situation of this place, which i do not share. in 804 æðelríc the son of æðelmund was impleaded respecting lands in gloucestershire, and stood to right at cloveshoo. now it is clear that trial to those lands could properly be made only in the hundred or shire where they lay; and as the brotherhood of berkeley were claimants, and the whole business appertained to westminster, i am disposed to seek cloveshoo somewhere in the hundred of that name in the county of gloucester, and therefore not far from deerhurst, tewksbury and bishop’s cleeve; not at all improbably in tewksbury itself, which may have been called clofeshoas, before the erection of a noble abbey at a later period gave it the name it now bears. cod. dipl. no. 186.

483. these were usual periods for holding the gemót. “actum wintoniae in publica curia natalis christi, in die festivitatis sancti sylvestri,” etc. cod. dipl. no. 815. the old folcmót probably met three times in the year at the unbidden ðing or placitum: so did the followers of the first norman kings at least, and it is remarkable enough that the barons at oxford should have returned to this arrangement, 42 hen. iii. anno 1258. “fait a remembrer qe lez xxiiii ount ordeignez qe trois parlementz seront par an, le primere az octaues de seint michel, le seconde lendimayn de le chaundelour, le tierce le primer iour de juyn ceste asauoir trois semayns deuant le seint johan; et a ces troiz parlementz vendront lez conseillours le roi eluz tut ne seyent il pas mandez pur vere lestat du roialme, et pur treter les communes busoignes du reaume et del roi ensement et autrefoitz ensembleront quant mester sera par maundement le roi.” prov. oxon., brit. mus., cotton ms., tiberius b. iv. folio 213. according to the later custom parliaments were to be, at least, annual, and were frequently admitted so to be by law, until the tudor times. see 5 ed. ii. an. 1311. “nous ordenoms qe le roy tiegne parlement vne foiz par an ou deux fois se mestre soit, et ceo en lieu convenable,” etc.: which ordinance of the lords was passed into an act of parliament 4 ed. iii. cap. 14. some years later the commons petitioned the same king, that for redress of grievances and other important causes, “soit parlement tenuz au meinz chescun an en la seson que plerra au roy.” rot. parl. 36 ed. iii. n. 25. to which the king answered that the ancient statute thereupon should be held. this petition the commons found it necessary to repeat fourteen years later, “qe chescun an soit tenuz un parlement,” etc.: to which the answer was, “endroit du parlement chescun an, il y aent estatuz et ordenances faitz les queux soient duement gardez et tenuz.” rot. parl. 50 ed. iii. n. 186: and the same thing took place at the accession of richard the second. rot. parl. 1 ric. ii. n. 95. 2 ric. ii. n. 2. triennial parliaments were, i believe, first agreed to by charles the first.

484. the establishment of the scabini or schöffen in the frankish empire was intended to relieve the freemen from the inconvenience of attending gemóts, which the counts converted into an engine of extortion and oppression.

485. it has always been a question of deep interest in this country, what persons were entitled to attend the gemót: and in truth very important constitutional doctrines depend upon the answer we give to it. the very first and most essential condition of truth appears to me, that we firmly close our eyes to everything derived from the custom of parliaments, under the norman, the angevine or the english kings: the practice of a nation governed by the principles of feudal law, is totally irreconcileable with the old system of personal relations which existed under the earlier teutonic law. the next most important thing is, that we use no words but such as the saxons themselves used: the moment we begin to talk of tenants in capite, vavassors, vassals, and so forth, we introduce terms which may involve a petitio principii, and must lead to associations of ideas tending to an erroneous conclusion. one of these fallacies appears to me to lie in the assertion that a landed qualification was required for a member of the witena gemót. one of the most brilliant, if not the most accurate, commentators on our constitutional history, sir f. palgrave, has raised this question. according to his view no one could be a member of that singular body which he supposes the anglosaxon parliament to have been, unless he had forty híds of land, four thousand acres at least according to the popular doctrine. but this whole supposition rests upon a series of fine-drawn conclusions, in my opinion, without sound foundation, and totally inconsistent with every feeling and habit of saxon society. the monkish writer of the history of ely—a very late and generally ill-informed authority—says that a lady would not marry some suitor of hers, because not having forty híds he could not be counted among the proceres; and this is the whole basis of this parliamentary theory,—proceres being assumed, without the slightest reason, to mean members of the witena gemót,—and the witena gemót to be some royal council, some curia regis, and not at all the kind of body described in this chapter. i confess i cannot realize to myself the notion of an anglosaxon woman nourishing the ambition of seeing her husband a member of parliament. the passage no doubt implies that a certain amount of land was necessary to entitle a man to be classed in a certain high rank in society: and this becomes probable enough as we find a landed qualification partially insisted on with regard to the ceorl who aspired to be ranked as a thane. but this is a negative condition altogether: it is intended to repress the pretensions of those who, in spite of their ceorlish birth, assumed the weapons and would, if possible, have assumed the rights of thanes. in the saxon custumal, called “ranks,” it is said:—“and if a thane throve so that he became an eorl, he was thenceforth worthy of eorl-right.” thorpe, i. 192. on this the learned editor of the ancient laws and institutes observes:—“it is to this law that the historian of ely seems to allude in the following passage, and not to any qualification for a seat in the witena gemót, as has been so frequently asserted. ‘habuit (sc. wulfricus abbas) enim fratrem gudmundum vocabulo, cui filiam praepotentis viri in matrimonium coniungi paraverat, sed quoniam ille quadraginta hidarum terrae dominium minime obtineret, licet nobilis esset [that is, a thane] inter proceres tunc nominari non potuit, eum puella repudiavit.’ gale, ii. c. 40. if we refer to the dooms of cnut, c. 69, we shall see that the heriots of an eorl and of a lesser thane were in the proportion of from one to eight,—a rule which may have been supposed to have arisen from a somewhat similar relation between the quantities of their respective estates; and as the possession of five hides conferred upon a ceorl the rights of a thane, the possession of forty (5 × 8) in all probability raised a thane to the dignity of an eorl.” this opinion is only a confirmation of that which i had myself formed on similar grounds long before mr. thorpe’s work was published: and it was apparently so understood by phillips before either of us wrote. see angels. recht. p. 114, note 317, göttingen, 1825.

486. leg. æðelst. v. § 10.

487. i write wita not wíta. the vowel is short, and the noun is formed either upon the plural participle of wítan to know, or upon a noun wit, intellectus, previously so formed. the quantity of the vowel is ascertained by the not uncommon spelling weota, where eo = ĭ (see cod. dipl. no. 1073), and the occurrence in composition of the form uta, which is consonant to the analogy of wudu, wuduwe, wuce for wĭdu, wĭduwe, wĭce, but excludes the possibility of a long í.

488. cod. dipl. nos. 361, 1102, 1105, 1107, 1108.

489. cod. dipl. no. 1103.

490. cod. dipl. no. 364.

491. chron. sax. an. 1009.

492. see cod. dipl. nos. 353, 364, 1107. there is one document signed by 121 persons (cod. dipl. nos. 219, 220), but i have some doubt whether all the signitaries were members of the gemót.

493. beda, h. e. ii. 13.

494. chron. sax. an. 978.

495. such perhaps was the gemót which after eádmund írensída’s death elected cnut sole king of england, or that in which earl godwine and his family were outlawed.

496. this is not altogether devoid of strangeness, because we know that among the oldsaxons of the continent there was a regulated system of elective representatives, including even those of the servile class. hucbald, in his life of lebuuini, tells us: “in saxonum gente priscis temporibus neque summi coelestisque regis inerat notitia, ut digna cultui eius exhiberetur reverentia, neque terreni alicuius regis dignitas et honorificentia, cuius regeretur providentia, corrigeretur censura, defenderetur industria: sed erat gens ipsa, sicuti nunc usque consistit, ordine tripartito divisa. sunt denique ibi, qui illorum lingua edilingi, sunt qui frilingi, sunt qui lassi dicuntur, quod in latina sonat lingua, nobiles, ingenuiles atque serviles. pro suo vero libitu, consilio quoque, ut videbatur, prudenti, singulis pagis principes praeerant singuli. statuto quoque tempore anni semel ex singulis pagis, atque ab eisdem ordinibus tripartitis, singillatim viri duodecim electi, et in unum collecti, in media saxonia secus flumen wiseram et locum marklo nuncupatum, exercebant generale concilium, tractantes, sancientes et propalantes communis commoda utilitatis, iuxta placitum a se statutae legis. sed etsi forte belli terreret exitium, si pacis arrideret gaudium, consulebant ad haec quid sibi foret agendum.” pertz, monum. ii. 361, 362.

497. æðelst. v. § 10. thorpe, i. 240.

498. “ðonne beád mon ealle witan tó cynge, and man sceólde ðonne rǽdan, hú man ðisne eard werian sceólde.” chron. an. 1010. beódan is to proclaim.

see also chron. sax. 1048. hist. eliens. 1, 10, etc.

499. “and se cyng hæfde ðǽr on morgen witena gemót, ⁊ cwæð hine útlage.” chron. sax. an. 1052. “and wæs ðá witena gemót.” ib. an. 1052. “ða hæfde eádwerd cyning witena gemót on lundene.” ib. an. 1050.

500. cod. dipl. no. 116. it is probable that even in strictly ecclesiastical synods, the king had a presidency at least, as head of the church in his dominions. in willibald’s life of boniface we are told:—“regnante ini, westsaxonum rege, subitanea quaedam incubuerat, nova quadam seditione exorta, necessitas, et statim synodale a primatibus aecclesiarum cum consilio praedicti regis servorum dei factum est concilium; moxque omnibus in unum convenientibus, saluberrima de hac recenti dissentione consilii quaestio inter sacerdotales aecclesiastici ordinis gradus sapienter exoritur, et prudentiori inito consultu, fideles in domino legatos ad archiepiscopum cantuariae civitatis, nomine berchtwaldum, destinandos deputarunt, ne eorum praesumptione aut temeritati adscriberetur, si quid sine tanti pontificis agerent consilio. cumque omnis senatus et universus clericorum ordo, tam providenti peracta conlatione, consentirent, confestim rex cunctos christi famulos adlocutus est, ut cui huius praefatae legationis nuntium inponerent, sciscitarent,” etc. pertz, ii. 338.

501. runde, abhandlung vom ursprung der reichsstandschaft der bischöfe und aebte. gött. 1775, p. 35, etc.

502. hist. eccl. i. 26.

503. ibid. ii. 5.

504. see phillips, geschichte des angelsächsischen rechts. gött. 1825, p. 71.

505. hloðhære and eádríc, kings of the men of kent, augmented the laws which their forefathers had made before them, by these dooms. prol. to leg. hloð. et ead. thorpe, i. 26. see also the prologue to wihtrǽd’s laws in the text.

506. this is the case throughout the teutonic legislation, where there is a king at all. “theodoricus rex francorum, cum esset cathalaunis, elegit viros sapientes, qui in regno suo legibus antiquis eruditi erant: ipso autem dictante, iussit conscribere legem francorum, alemannorum et baiuvariorum,” etc. eichhorn, i. 273. “incipit lex alamannorum, quae temporibus hlodharii regis (an. 613-628) una cum principibus suis, id sunt xxxiii episcopis, et xxxiv ducibus, et lxii comitibus, vel caetero populo constituta est.” eichhorn, i. 274, note a. “in christi nomine, incipit lex alamannorum, qui temporibus lanfrido filio godofrido renovata est. convenit enim maioribus natu populo allamannorum una cum duci eorum lanfrido vel citerorum populo adunato ut si quilibet,” etc. about beginning of eighth century. eichhorn. i. 274, note c. the breviarium of alaric the visigoth (an. 506) was compiled by roman jurists, but submitted to an assembly of prelates and noble laymen. in the authoritative rescript which accompanies this work, it is said the object was, “ut omnis legum romanarum, et antiqui iuris obscuritas, adhibitis sacerdotibus ac nobilibus viris, in lucem intelligentiae melioris deducta resplendeat.... quibus omnibus enucleatis atque in unum librum prudentium electione collectis, haec quae excerpta sunt, vel clariori interpretatione composita, venerabilium episcoporum, vel electorum provincialium nostrorum roboravit adsensus.” eichhorn, i. 280, note bb. gundobald the burgundian, whose laws must have been promulgated before 515, says that he was aided by the advice of his optimates. again he says, “primum habito consilio comitum, procerumque nostrorum,” etc. eichhorn, i. 265, note c.

507. hist. eccl. ii. 5. he cites a passage which identifies these dooms with those which yet go under æðelberht’s name.

508. a.d. 696. the month is unknown, but probably in autumn.

509. now berstead, near maidstone, in kent, certainly not berkhampstead in hertfordshire, as clutterbuck affirms in his history of that county.

510. “eádigra geþeahtendlíc ymcyme.” see thorpe, i. 36, note c.

511. archbishop of canterbury.

512. the people subject to their charge. were the people, that is, the freemen, present at this gemót in their divisions as parishes or ecclesiastical districts?

513. thorpe, i. 36.

514. the clergy especially.

515. thorpe, i. 102.

516. ælfred makes a marked exception in the case of treason, and repeats it in strong terms in § 4 of his laws, “be hláford syrwe.” these despotic tendencies of a great prince, nurtured probably by his exaggerated love for foreign literature, may account to us for the state of utter destitution in which his people at one time left him. his strong personality, and active character, coupled with the almost miraculous, at any rate most improbable, event, of his ascending the throne of wessex, may have betrayed him in his youth into steps which his countrymen looked upon as dangerous to their liberties. nothing can show ælfred’s antinational and un-teutonic feeling more than his attributing the system of bóts or compensations to the influence of christianity.

517. this is mr. thorpe’s version, i. 59. but the words may be as strictly construed, “should be loved like himself,” viz. god.

518. thorpe, i. 214.

519. ibid. i. 207.

520. æðelst. iv. thorpe, i. 220, 224.

521. æðelst. v. § 10, 11, 12. thorpe, i. 238, 240.

522. thorpe, i. 244.

523. ibid. i. 246.

524. ibid. i. 262; see also pp. 270, 272, 276.

525. ibid. i. 280.

526. ibid. i. 292.

527. ibid. i. 304.

528. the word ceósan, to elect or choose, is the technical expression in teutonic legislation for ordinances which have been deliberated upon.

529. thorpe, i. 314, 316, 318.

530. ibid. i. 340, 342, 350.

531. ibid. i. 358, 376.

532. woroldwitan. æðelr. vii. § 24. thorpe, i. 334.

533. æðelr. ix. § 36. thorpe, i. 348.

534. chron. sax. an. 878. asser, in anno.

535. thorpe, i. 152.

536. thorpe, i. 166.

537. chron. sax. an. 994.

538. thorpe, i. 284.

539. see chron. sax. an. 1002, 1004, 1006, 1011, 1012. the solemn partition of the kingdom between eádmund írensída and cnut was effected by the witan, at olney in gloucestershire. chron. sax. an. 1016.

540. i speak now of periods subsequent to the consolidation of the monarchy: while england was full of kinglets, disputes were not infrequent. northumberland and wessex (previous to beorhtríc’s alliance with offa) furnish examples. but here the competitors were numerous, and the witan themselves split into parties, generally maintaining the interests of different royal families.

541. asser, an. 871.

542. simeon of durham uses equally strong terms on the occasion. “ælfredus a ducibus et a praesulibus totius gentis eligitur, et non solum ab ipsis, verumetiam ab omni populo adoratur, ut eis praeesset, ad faciendam vindictam in nationibus, increpationes in populis.” an. 871.

543. he had fled to normandy.

544. leóde and leódscipe, the words used in the chronicle, may possibly mean only the great officers or ministerials, the frankish leudes. but the balance of probability is in favour of its representing the whole people: leódscipe, which is the reading of the most manuscripts, having a more general sense than leóde.

545. chron. sax. an. 755.

546. perhaps his own, ancestral kingdom. does not all this look very much as if wessex was still only a confederation of petty principalities, with one elective and paramount head?

547. flor. wig. an. 755.

548. æðelw. an. 755, lib. ii. c. 17.

549. hen. hunt. hist. ang. lib. iv.

550. “sigebertus rex, in principio secundi anni regni sui, cum incorrigibilis superbiae et nequitiae esset, congregati sunt proceres et populus totius regni, et provida deliberatione, et unanimi consensu omnium expulsus est a regno. kinewulf vero, iuvenis egregius de regia stirpe oriundus, electus est in regem.”

551. flor. wig. an. 957.

552. “eodem tempore, alcredus rex, consilio et consensu omnium suorum, regiae familiae principum destitutus societate, exilio imperii mutavit maiestatem.” sim. dun. an. 774. other germanic tribes did the same thing. “sed cum aldoaldus eversa mente insaniret, de regno eiectus est.” paul. diae. langob. iv. 43. among the burgundians, “generali nomine rex appellatur hendinos, et ritu veteri, potestate deposita removetur, si sub eo fortuna titubaverit belli, vel segetum copiam negaverit terra.” amm. marc. xxxiii. 5.

553. “dehinc beatus dunstanus, æthelmi archiepiscopi ex fratre nepos, glæstaniæ abbas, post huicciorum et londoniensium episcopus, ex respectu divino et sapientum consilio, primae metropolis anglorum primas et patriarcha.” flor. wig. an. 959.

554. flor. wig. an. 975, says, “et in synodo constituti, se nequaquam ferre posse dixerunt, ut monachi eiicerentur de regno.”

555. æðelr. v. § 16. cnut, i. § 17. thorpe, i. 310, 370.

556. for example, cnut, i. § 14, 15, 16. thorpe, i. 368, etc.

557. for example, æðelr. ix. § 6. thorpe, i. 342. æðelr. vi. § 51. thorpe, i. 328, etc.

558. ini, § 59. thorpe, i. 140. wyrhta like the factus (= mansus) of the franks appears to be the mansio or hide. but the amounts do not concern us at present.

559. chron. sax. an. 1006. the sum raised was thirty-six thousand pounds. chron. an. 1012. in this year forty-eight thousand pounds were paid.

560. chron. sax. an. 1008. a ship from every three hundred hides; and a helmet and coat-of-mail from every eight hides,—a very heavy amount of shipmoney.

561. chron. sax. an. 1018.

562. ibid. an. 1052.

563. the butsecarls or shipmen of the seaports may possibly have been obliged to find shipping and serve on board.

564. flor. 1047, 1048. compare chron. sax. in an. cit.

565. cod. dipl. no. 281.

566. cod. dipl. no. 260.

567. ibid. no. 1019.

568. ibid. no. 1087.

569. cod. dipl. no. 1246. “aliquam terrae particulam [h]abeo, id est quinque mansas ... æt peatanige, quatinus bene perfruar, ac perpetualiter possideam, vita comite, et post me cuicunque voluero perhenniter haeredi derelinquam in aeternam haereditatem,” etc.

570. cod. dipl. no. 1253.

571. ibid. no. 1112.

572. cod. dipl. no. 1295.

573. ibid. no. 374.

574. ibid. no. 1035.

575. the charter which furnishes the evidence of this fact will appear in the seventh volume of the codex diplomaticus. it is in the archives of westminster abbey, and its date is the time of eádgár. [the death of mr. kemble in 1857 prevented the publication of this seventh volume.]

576. at a gemót in 1055, earl ælfgár was outlawed. at a gemót in 1066 at oxford, earl tostig was outlawed, etc.

577. see vol. i. p. 145 note.

578. cod. dipl. no. 1019.

579. i conclude this from the prologue to ælfred’s laws.

580. the franks and the church were familiar with such officers, who under the name of missi were dispatched into the provinces for special purposes. perhaps the ælfheáh and brihtnóð mentioned in the judicia civitatis were the missi who were to be employed on this commission.

581. mr. hallam, in his supplemental notes, p. 229, remarks upon this important document: “it is moreover an objection to considering this a formal enactment by the witan of the shire, that it runs in the names of ‘thaini, comites et villani.’ can it be maintained that the ceorls ever formed an integrant element of the legislature in the kingdom of kent? it may be alleged that their name was inserted, though they had not been formally consenting parties, as we find in some parliamentary grants of money much later. but this would be an arbitrary conjecture, and the terms ‘omnes thaini,’ etc. are very large.”

if the ceorls ever did form an integral part of the legislature in the kingdom of kent, the whole question is settled. but i do not contemplate the thanes in kent acting here as a legislative body: that is, i do not believe æðelstán’s witan in wessex to have passed a law, and then his witan in kent to have accepted or continued it. i believe his witan from all england to have made certain enactments, which the proper officers brought down to the various shires, and in the shiremoots there took pledge of the shire-thanes that they accepted and would abide by the premises; just as in the case quoted on the preceding page. and this is the more striking because there is every reason to suppose that the witena gemót whose acts the shire-thanes of kent thus accepted was actually holden at feversham in that county. but it is further to be observed that the document we possess is a late latin translation of the original sent to æðelstán: i will venture to assert that in that original the words used were, “ealle scírþegnas on cent, ge eorl ge ceorl,” or perhaps “ge twelfhynde ge twihynde.” again, there is no reason to suppose that the ceorls did not form an integrant part of the shiremoot, the representative of the ancient, independent legislature. a full century later than the date of the council of feversham, they continued to do so in the same kingdom or, at that period, earldom: and it will be readily admitted that during those hundred years the tendency of society was not to increase the power or improve the condition of the ceorl. between 1013 and 1020 we thus find cnut addressing the authorities in kent (cod. dipl. no. 731):—“cnut the king sends friendly greeting to archbishop lýfing, bishop godwine, abbot ælfmǽr, æðelwine the sheriff, æðelríc, and all my thanes, both twelve-hundred and two-hundred men,—ealle míne þegnas twelfhynde and twihynde:”—in other words, both eorl and ceorl, nobilis and ignobilis, or as the witan of æðelstán have it, in the norman translation, comites et villani. the nature of cnut’s writ, which is addressed to the authorities of the county, the archbishop and sheriff, shows clearly that the thanes in question are not those royal officers called cyninges þegnas—who could never be two-hundred men—but the scírþegnas. these are of frequent occurrence in anglosaxon documents. the scírgemót at ægelnóðes stán (about 1038) was attended by æðelstán the bishop, ranig the ealdorman, bryning the sheriff and all the thanes in herefordshire. cod. dipl. no. 755. a sale by stigand was witnessed by all the scírþegnas in hampshire; that is, it was a public instrument completed in the shiremoot. cod. dipl. no. 949. again a grant of stigand was witnessed about 1053 by various authorities in hampshire, including eádsige the sheriff and all the scírþegnas. cod. dipl. no. 1337: and similarly a third of the same prelate, cod. dipl. no. 820. about the same period wulfwold abbot of bath makes title to lands, which he addresses to bishop gisa, tofig the sheriff and all the thanes of somersetshire. cod. dipl. no. 821. in the year 1049, ðurstán granted lands at wimbush by witness of a great number of persons, among whom are leófcild the sheriff and all the thanes of essex. cod. dipl. no. 788: and about the same time gódríc bought lands at offham, in a shiremoot at wii, before all the shire. cod. dipl. no. 789. lastly, leófwine bought land, by witness of ulfcytel the sheriff and all the thanes in herefordshire. cod. dipl. no. 802. the relation of these thanes to the gódan men or dohtigan men (good men, doughty men, boni et legales homines, scabini, rachinburgii, etc.) will be examined in a subsequent book, when i come to treat of the courts of justice: but i will here add one example, which is illustrative of the subject of this note. the marriage-covenants of godwine, arranged before cnut, by witness of archbishop lyfing and others, including æðelwine the sheriff, and various kentish landowners, are stated to be in the knowledge (geenǽwe) of every doughty man in kent and sussex (where the lands lay) both thane and churl. cod. dipl. no. 732. there was nothing whatever to prevent a man from being a scírþegn, whether eorlcund or ceorlcund, as long as he had land in the scír itself: without land, even a cyninges þegn could certainly not be a scírþegn. it is true that a man might be of síðcund rank, that is noble, without owning land (see leg. ini, § 51), and there were king’s thanes who had no land (æðelst. v. § 11); but such a one could assuredly not represent himself in the scírgemót. there is a common error which runs through much of what has been admitted on this subject: the ceorl is universally represented in a low condition. this is not however necessarily the case: some ceorls, though well to do in the world, may have preferred their independence to the conventional dignity of thaneship. we may admit, as a general rule, that the thanes were a wealthier class than the ceorls; indeed, without becoming a thane, a ceorl had little chance of getting a grant of folcland or bócland, but some of them may have, through various circumstances, inherited or purchased considerable estates: as late as the year 984, i find an estate of eight hides (that is 264 acres according to my reckoning) in the possession of a rusticus, obviously a ceorl:—“illud videlicet rus quod æðeríc quidam rusticus prius habuisse agnoscitur.” cod. dipl. no. 1282.

582. thorpe, i. 216. æðelstán complains on another occasion that the oaths and weds which had been given to the king and his witan were all broken: “quia iuramenta et vadia, quae regi et sapientibus data fuerunt, semper infracta sunt et minus observata quam deo et saeculo conveniant.” æðelst. iii. § 3. thorpe, i. 218. again: æðelstán the king makes known, that i have learned that our peace is worse kept than is pleasing to me, or as was ordained at greatley; and my witan say that i have borne with it too long.... because the oaths, and weds, and borhs are all disregarded and broken which on that occasion were given, etc. æðelst. iv. § 1. thorpe, i. 220.

583. conc. wihtbordes stán. eádg. supp. § 1. thorpe, i. 272.

584. “lex consensu populi fit, et constitutione regis.” edict. pistense. an. 864. pertz, iii. 490, § 6.

585. æðelst. v. § 11. thorpe, i. 240.

586. there is evidence of their doing this on a somewhat less solemn occasion, though perhaps it was a shiremoot. æðelstán, a duke, booked land to abingdon, by witness of bishop cynsige, archbishop wulfhelm, hroðweard, and other prelates. the boundaries were solemnly led, and then the assembled bishops and abbots excommunicated any one who should dispossess the monastery: and all the people that stood round about cried “so be it! so be it!” “and cwæð ealle ðæt folc ðe ðǽr embstód, sý hit swá. amen. amen.” “et dixit onmis populus qui ibi aderat, fiat, fiat. amen.” cod. dipl. no. 1129.

587. hist. eccl. iii. c. 25.

588. hen. hunt. lib. iv.

589. cod. dipl. no. 73.

590. cod. dipl. no. 186.

591. ibid. no. 364.

592. ibid. no. 1103.

593. “iusto valde iudicio totius populi, et seniorum et primatum,” etc. “ideoque decretum est ab omni populo,” etc. cod. dipl. no. 374.

594. hist. eccl. ii. 5.

595. ibid. ii. 9.

596. ibid. ii. 13.

597. beda, hist. eccl. ii. 13.

598. beda, hist. eccl. ii. 14.

599. chron. sax. an. 657. cod. dipl. no. 984.

600. beda, hist. eccl. iii. 25.

601. beda, hist. eccl. iii. 29.

602. beda, hist. eccl. iv. 5. chron. sax. an. 673.

603. beda, hist. eccl. iv. 17. chron. sax. an. 675, 680. cod. dipl. no. 991.

604. beda, hist. eccl. iv. 28. cod. dipl. no. 25.

605. cod. dipl. no. 26.

606. the saxon chronicle, which often errs in its dates by two years, puts this in 694. but the year 696 is ascertained by the indiction, which was the ninth.

607. thorpe, i. 36.

608. chron. sax. an. 694. cod. dipl. no. 996.

609. cod. dipl. nos. 50, 51.

610. ibid. no. 54.

611. hist. eccl. v. 18.

612. beda, hist. eccl. v. 19.

613. beda, hist. eccl. v. 18.

614. cod. dipl. no. 82.

615. cod. dipl. no. 87.

616. cod. dipl. no. 99.

617. chron. sax. an. 755. flor. wig. 755. æðelw. ii. 17. hen. hunt. lib. iv. see the remarks in the text, p. 219 seq. of this volume.

618. cod. dipl. nos. 139, 140, 143.

619. chron. sax. an. 782.

620. chron. sax. an. 785. flor. wig. 785.

621. cod. dipl. no. 151.

622. cod. dipl. no. 153.

623. chron. sax. an. 788. flor. wig. 788.

624. sim. dunelm. 787.

625. cod. dipl. nos. 155, 156, 157.

626. chron. sax. an. 789.

627. cod. dipl. no. 159.

628. cod. dipl. no. 162.

629. rog. wend. i. 257.

630. cod. dipl. nos. 164, 167.

631. chron. sax. an. 796. cod. dipl. nos. 172, 173.

632. cod. dipl. no. 175.

633. ibid. no. 1018.

634. ibid. no. 1019.

635. ibid. no. 176.

636. ibid. no. 116. another act, ibid. no. 1023.

637. cod. dipl. nos. 185, 1024.

638. ibid. nos. 183, 184.

639. cod. dipl. no. 186.

640. cod. dipl. no. 190.

641. ibid. no. 256.

642. ibid. nos. 196, 220.

643. ibid. no. 197. chron. ms. wincelc. an. 811.

644. cod. dipl. no. 208.

645. ibid. no. 218.

646. ibid. no. 1031.

647. ibid. no. 219.

648. ibid. no. 220: see also no. 1034.

649. in some saxon original, no doubt, “and eal dúgoð, ge cyriclíces ge woroldlíces hádes.”

650. cod. dipl. nos. 1035, 1036, 1038.

651. ibid. no. 240.

652. ibid. no. 1044.

653. ibid. no. 240.

654. ibid. no. 256.

655. cod. dipl. no. 265.

656. chron. sax. an. 853.

657. cod. dipl. no. 275.

658. chron. sax. an. 868.

659. cod. dipl. no. 314.

660. chron. sax. an. 878. flor. wig. 878.

661. thorpe, i. 152 seq.

662. cod. dipl. no. 1066.

663. ibid. nos. 327, 1068.

664. ibid. no. 1073.

665. ibid. no. 1075.

666. chron. sax. an. 901.

667. cod. dipl. no. 1087.

668. cod. dipl. no. 338.

669. ibid. nos. 1082, 1084.

670. leg. eádw. § 4. thorpe, i. 162.

671. cod. dipl. no. 1091.

672. ibid. no. 1096.

673. ibid. no. 499.

674. chron. sax. an. 911.

675. cod. dipl. no. 499.

676. ibid. no. 1101.

677. ibid. no. 352.

678. cod. dipl. no. 353.

679. ibid. no. 1103.

680. ibid. no. 1102.

681. ibid. no. 1105.

682. ibid. no. 361.

683. ibid. nos. 1107, 1108.

684. ibid. no. 361.

685. ibid. no. 364.

686. ibid. no. 365.

687. ibid. nos. 367, 1112.

688. ibid. no. 1113.

689. ibid. no. 1129.

690. thorpe, i. 240.

691. ibid. i. 194.

692. thorpe, i. 216.

693. ibid. i. 217.

694. ibid. i. 220. this however may have been in 926, when æðelstán was in that city.

695. leg. eádm. thorpe, i. 244, 252.

696. cod. dipl. no. 411.

697. chron. sax. an. 947.

698. chron. sax. an. 948.

699. cod. dipl. no. 499.

700. ibid. no. 528.

701. cod. dipl. nos. 1265, 1266.

702. ibid. no. 580.

703. chron. sax. an. 977.

704. ibid. an. 978.

705. cod. dipl. no. 598.

706. thorpe, i. 272.

707. chron. sax. an. 979.

708. ibid. an. 992.

709. cod. dipl. no. 684.

710. chron. sax. an. 994. ll. æðelr. 11. thorpe, i. 284.

711. chron. sax. an. 995.

712. cod. dipl. no. 692.

713. ibid. no. 696.

714. ibid. no. 698.

715. thorpe, i. 292.

716. cod. dipl. no. 698.

717. thorpe, i. 280, 294.

718. ibid. i. 280.

719. cod. dipl. no. 702.

720. chron. sax. an. 998.

721. thorpe, i. 284.

722. chron. sax. an. 999.

723. cod. dipl. no. 704.

724. chron. sax. an. 1002

725. cod. dipl. no. 707.

726. chron. sax. an. 1004.

727. ibid. an. 1006.

728. cod. dipl. no. 1305.

729. chron. sax. an. 1009.

730. chron. sax. an. 1010.

731. ibid. an. 1011.

732. ibid. an. 1012.

733. ibid. an. 1014.

734. chron. sax. an. 1015.

735. thorpe, i. 314.

736. thorpe, i. 366.

737. chron. sax. an. 1016.

738. thorpe, i. 358.

739. chron. sax. an. 1020.

740. chron. sax. an. 1036.

741. cod. dipl. nos. 765, 766.

742. chron. sax. an. 1042. at gillingham. will. malm. i. 332, § 197. “nihil erat quod edwardus pro necessitate temporis non polliceretur, ita, utrinque fide data, quicquid petebatur sacramento firmavit. nec mora gillingcham congregato concilio, rationibus suis explicitis, regem effecit (godwinus) hominio palam omnibus dato: homo affectati leporis, et ingenue gentilitia lingua eloquens, mirus dicere, mirus populo persuadere quae placerent. quidam auctoritatem eius secuti, quidam muneribus flexi, quidam etiam debitum edwardi amplexi.”

743. chron. sax. an. 1043.

744. flor. wig. an. 1044.

745. cod. dipl. nos. 776, 777.

746. ibid. nos. 779, 783.

747. ibid. no. 786.

748. chron. sax. an. 1047.

749. chron. sax. an. 1048.

750. ibid. an. 1050.

751. cod. dipl. no. 799.

752. chron. sax. an. 1055.

753. ibid. an. 1065.