This answer was no other than William expected; and he had previously

fixed his resolution of making an attempt upon England. Consulting only

his courage, his resentment, and his ambition, he overlooked all the

difficulties inseparable from an attack on a great kingdom by such

inferior force, and he saw only the circumstances which would facilitate

his enterprise. He considered that England, ever since the accession of

Canute, had enjoyed profound tranquillity, during a period of near fifty

years; and it would require time for its soldiers, enervated by long

peace, to learn discipline, and its generals experience. He knew that it

was entirely unprovided with fortified towns, by which it could prolong

the war; but must venture its whole fortune in one decisive action,

against a veteran enemy, who, being once master of the field, would be

in a condition to overrun the kingdom. He saw that Harold, though he had

given proofs of vigor and bravery, had newly mounted a throne which he

had acquired by faction, from which he had excluded a very ancient royal

family, and which was likely to totter under him by its own instability,

much more if shaken by any violent external impulse. And he hoped that

the very circumstance of his crossing the sea, quitting his own country,

and leaving himself no hopes of retreat, as it would astonish the

enemy by the boldness of the enterprise, would inspirit his soldiers by

despair, and rouse them to sustain the reputation of the Norman arms.

The Normans, as they had long been distinguished by valor among all the

European nations, had, at this time, attained to the highest pitch of

military glory. Besides acquiring by arms such a noble territory in

France, besides defending it against continual attempts of the French

monarch and all its neighbors, besides exerting many acts of vigor under

their present sovereign, they had, about this very time, revived their

ancient fame, by the most hazardous exploits, and the moat wonderful

successes, in the other extremity of Europe. A few Norman adventurers

in Italy had acquired such an ascendant, not only over the Italians

and Greeks, but the Germans and Saracens, that they expelled those

foreigners, procured to themselves ample establishments, and laid

the foundation of the opulent kingdom of Naples and Sicily.[*] These

enterprises of men, who were all of them vassals in Normandy many of

them banished for faction and rebellion, excited the ambition of the

haughty William, who disdained, after such examples of fortune and

valor, to be deterred from making an Attack on a neighboring country,

where he could be supported by the whole force of his principality.

[* Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 30.]

The situation also of Europe inspired William with hopes that, besides

his brave Normans, he might employ against England the flower of the

military force which was dispersed in all the neighboring states.

France, Germany, and the Low Countries, by the progress of the feudal

institutions, were divided and subdivided into many principalities and

baronies; and the possessors, enjoying the civil jurisdiction within

them selves, as well as the right of arms, acted, in many respects, as

independent sovereigns, and maintained their propertied and privileges,

less by the authority of laws, than by their own force and valor. A

military spirit had universally diffused itself throughout Europe;

and the several leaders, whose minds were elevated by their princely

situation, greedily embraced the most hazardous enterprises; and being

accustomed to nothing, from their infancy, but recitals of the success

attending wars and battles, they were prompted by a natural ambition to

imitate those adventures which they heard so much celebrated, and which

were so much exaggerated by the credulity of the age. United, however

loosely, by their duty to one superior lord, and by their connections

with the great body of the community to which they belonged, they

desired to spread their fame each beyond his own district and in all

assemblies, whether instituted for civil deliberations for military

expeditions, or merely for show and entertainment, to outshine each

other by the reputation of strength and prowess. Hence their genius for

chivalry; hence their impatience of peace and tranquillity; and hence

their readiness to embark in any dangerous enterprise, how little soever

interested in its failure or success.

William, by his power, his courage, and his abilities, had long

maintained a preeminence among those haughty chieftains; and every one

who desired to signalize himself by his address in military exercises,

or his valor in action, had been ambitious of acquiring a reputation

in the court and in the armies of Normandy. Entertained with that

hospitality and courtesy which distinguished the age, they had formed

attachments with the prince, and greedily attended to the prospects

of the signal glory and elevation which he promised them in return for

their concurrence in an expedition against England. The more grandeur

there appeared in the attempt, the more it suited their romantic spirit;

the fame of the intended invasion was already diffused everywhere;

multitudes crowded to tender to the duke their service, with that of

their vassals and retainers;[*] and William found less difficulty in

completing his levies, than in choosing the most veteran forces, and in

rejecting the offers of those who were impatient to acquire fame under

so renowned a leader.

Besides these advantages, which William owed to his personal valor

and good conduct, he was indebted to fortune for procuring him some

assistance, and also for removing many obstacles which it was natural

for him to expect, in an undertaking in which all his neighbors were so

deeply interested. Conan, count of Brittany, was his mortal enemy:

in order to throw a damp upon the duke’s enterprise, he chose this

conjuncture for reviving his claim to Normandy itself; and he required

that, in case of William’s success against England, the possession of

that duchy should devolve to him.[**] But Conan died suddenly after

making this demand; and Hoel, his successor, instead of adopting the

malignity, or, more properly speaking, the prudence of his predecessor,

zealously seconded the duke’s views, and sent his eldest son, Alain

Fergant, to serve under him with a body of five thousand Bretons. The

counts of Anjou and of Flanders encouraged their subjects to engage in

the expedition; and even the court of France, though it might justly

fear the aggrandizement of so dangerous a vassal, pursued not its

interests on this occasion with sufficient vigor and resolution.

[* Gul Pict. p. 198.]

[** Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 33]

Philip I., the reign ing monarch, was a minor; and William, having

communicated his project to the council, having desired assistance, and

offered to do homage, in case of his success, for the crown of England,

was indeed openly ordered to lay aside all thoughts of the enterprise;

but the earl of Flanders, his father-in-law, being at the head of the

regency, favored underhand his levies, and secretly encouraged the

adventurous nobility to enlist under the standard of the duke of

Normandy.

The emperor, Henry IV., besides openly giving all his vassals permission

to embark in this expedition, which so much engaged the attention of

Europe, promised his protection to the duchy of Normandy during the

absence of the prince, and thereby enabled him to employ his whole force

in the invasion of England.[*]

[* Gul. Pict. p, 198.]

But the most important ally that William gained by his negotiations, was

the pope, who had a mighty influence over the ancient barons, no less

devout in their religious principles than valorous in their military

enterprises. The Roman pontiff, after an insensible progress during

several ages of darkness and ignorance, began now to lift his head

openly above all the princes of Europe; to assume the office of a

mediator, or even an arbiter, in the quarrels of the greatest monarchs;

to interpose in all secular affairs; and lo obtrude his dictates as

sovereign laws on his obsequious disciples, It was a sufficient motive

to Alexander II., the reigning pope, for embracing William’s quarrel,

that he alone had made an appeal to his tribunal, and rendered him

umpire of the dispute between him and Harold; but there were other

advantages which that pontiff foresaw must result from the conquest of

England by the Norman arms. That kingdom, though at first converted

by Romish missionaries, though it had afterwards advanced some farther

steps towards subjection to Rome, maintained still a considerable

independence in its ecclesiastical administration; and forming a world

within itself, entirely separated from the rest of Europe, it had

hitherto proved inaccessible to those exorbitant claims which supported

the grandeur of the papacy. Alexander therefore hoped, that the French

and Norman barons, if successful in their enterprise, might import into

that country a more devoted reverence to the holy see, and bring the

English churches to a nearer conformity with those of the continent. He

declared immediately in favor of William’s claim; pronounced Harold

a perjured usurper; denounced excommunication against him and his

adherents; and the more to encourage the duke of Normandy in his

enterprise, he sent him a consecrated banner, and a ring with one of St.

Peter’s hairs in it.[*] Thus were all the ambition and violence of that

invasion covered over safely with the broad mantle of religion.

The greatest difficulty which William had to encounter in his

preparations, arose from his own subjects in Normandy. The states of the

duchy were assembled at Lislebonne; and supplies being demanded for the

intended enterprise, which promised so much glory and advantage to their

country, there appeared a reluctance in many members both to grant sums

so much beyond the common measure of taxes in that age, and to set a

precedent of performing their military service at a distance from their

own country. The duke, finding it dangerous to solicit them in a body,

conferred separately with the richest individuals in the province; and

beginning with those on whose affections he most relied, he gradually

engaged all of them to advance the sums demanded. The count of

Longueville seconded him in this negotiation; as did the count of

Mortaigne, Odo, bishop of Baieux, and especially William Fitz-Osborne,

count of Breteuil, and constable of the duchy. Every person, when he

himself was once engaged, endeavored to bring over others; and at last

the states themselves, after stipulating that this concession should be

no precedent, voted that they would assist their prince to the utmost in

his intended enterprise.[**]

William had now assembled a fleet of three thousand vessels, great and

small,[***] and had selected an army of sixty thousand men from among

those numerous supplies, which from every quarter solicited to be

received into his service.

[* Baker, p. 22, edit. 1634.]

[** Camden. Introd. ad Britann. p. 212, 2d edit.

Gibs. Verstegan. p. 173]

[*** Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 34.]

The camp bore a splendid, yet a martial appearance, from the discipline

of the men, the beauty and vigor of the horses, the lustre of the arms,

and the accoutrements of both; but above all, from the high names of

nobility who engaged under the banners of the duke of Normandy. The

most celebrated were Eustace, count of Boulogne, Aimeri de Thouars, Hugh

d’Estaples, William d’Evreux, Geoffrey de Rotrou, Roger de Beaumont,

William de Warenne, Roger de Montgomery, Hugh de Grantmesnil, Charles

Martel, and Geoffrey Giffard.[*] To these bold chieftains William held

up the spoils of England as the prize of their valor; and pointing to

the opposite shore, called to them that _there_ was the field,

on which they must erect trophies to their name, and fix their

establishments.

[* Order. Vitalis, p. 501.]

While he was making these mighty preparations, the duke, that he might

increase the number of Harold’s enemies, excited the inveterate rancor

of Tosti, and encouraged him, in concert with Harold Halfager, king of

Norway, to infest the coasts of England. Tosti, having collected about

sixty vessels in the ports of Flanders, put to sea; and after

committing some depredations on the south and east coasts, he sailed to

Northumberland, and was there joined by Halfager, who came over with a

great armament of three hundred sail. The combined fleets entered

the Humber, and disembarked the troops, who began to extend their

depredations on all sides; when Morcar, earl of Northumberland, and

Edwin, earl of Mercia, the king’s brother-in-law, having hastily

collected some forces, ventured to give them battle. The action ended in

the defeat and flight of these two noblemen.

Harold, informed of this defeat, hastened with an army to the protection

of his people; and expressed the utmost ardor to show himself worthy of

the crown, which had been conferred upon him. This prince, though he

was not sensible of the full extent of his danger, from the great

combination against him, had employed every art of popularity to acquire

the affections of the public; and he gave so many proofs of an equitable

and prudent administration, that the English found no reason to repent

the choice which they had made of a sovereign. They flocked from all

quarters to join his standard; and as soon as he reached the enemy at

Standford, he found himself in condition to give them battle. The action

was bloody; but the victory was decisive on the side of Harold, and

ended in the total rout of the Norwegians, together with the death of

Tosti and Halfager. Even the Norwegian fleet fell into the hands

of Harold, who had the generosity to give prince Olave, the son of

Halfager, his liberty, and allow him to depart with twenty vessels.

But he had scarcely time to rejoice for this victory, when he received

itelligence that the duke of Normandy was landed with a great army in

the south of England.

The Norman fleet and army had been assembled, early in the summer, at

the mouth of the small river Dive, and all the troops had been instantly

embarked; but the winds proved long contrary, and detained them in

that harbor. The authority, however, of the duke, the good discipline

maintained among the seamen and soldiers, and the great care in

supplying them with provisions, had prevented any disorder, when at last

the wind became favorable, and enabled them to sail along the coast,

till they reached St. Valori. There were, however, several vessels lost

in this short passage; and as the wind again proved contrary, the

army began to imagine that Heaven had declared against them, and that,

notwithstanding the pope’s benediction, they were destined to certain

destruction. These bold warriors, who despised real dangers, were

very subject to the dread of imaginary ones; and many of them began

to mutiny, some of them even to desert their colors, when the duke, in

order to support their drooping hopes, ordered a procession to be

made with the relics of St. Valori,[*] and prayers to be said for more

favorable weather.

[* Higden, p. 285. Order Vitalis, p. 500. M.

Paris, edit. Pai anno 1644, p. 2.]

The wind instantly changed; and as this incident happened on the eve of

the feast of St. Michael, the tutelar saint of Normandy, the

soldiers, fancying they saw the hand of Heaven in all these concurring

circumstances, set out with the greatest alacrity: they met with no

opposition on their passage. A great fleet which Harold had assembled,

and which had cruised all summer off the Isle of Wight, had been

dismissed on his receiving false intelligence that William, discouraged

by contrary winds and other accidents, had laid aside his preparations.

The Norman armament, proceeding in great order, arrived, without any

material loss, at Pevensey, in Sussex; and the army quietly disembarked.

The duke himself, as he leaped on shore, happened to stumble and fall;

but had the presence of mind, it is said, to turn the omen to his

advantage, by calling aloud that he had taken possession of the country.

And a soldier, running to a neighboring cottage, plucked some thatch,

which, as if giving him seizin of the kingdom, he presented to his

general. The joy and alacrity of William and his whole army was so

great, that they were nowise discouraged, evan when they heard of

Harold’s great victory over the Norwegians. They seemed rather to wait

with impatience the arrival of the enemy.

The victory of Harold, though great and honorable, had proved in the

main prejudicial to his interests, and may be regarded as the immediate

cause of his ruin. He lost many of his bravest officers and soldiers

in the action, and he disgusted the rest by refusing to distribute the

Norwegian spoils among them; a conduct which was little agreeable to his

usual generosity of temper, but which his desire of sparing the people,

in the war that impended over him from the duke of Normandy, had

probably occasioned. He hastened by quick marches to reach this new

invader; but though he was reènforced at London and other places with

fresh troops, he found himself also weakened by the desertion of his old

soldiers, who from fatigue and discontent secretly withdrew from their

colors. His brother Gurth, a man of bravery and conduct, began to

entertain apprehensions of the event; and remonstrated with the king,

that it would be better policy to prolong the war; at least, to spare

his own person in the action. He urged to him that the desperate

situation of the duke of Normandy made it requisite for that prince to

bring matters to a speedy decision, and put his whole fortune on the

issue of a battle; but that the king of England, in his own country,

beloved by his subjects, provided with every supply, had more certain

and less dangerous means of insuring to himself the victory; that the

Norman troops, elated on the one hand with the highest hopes, and seeing

on the other no resource in case of a discomfiture, would fight to

the last extremity; and being the flower of all the warriors of the

continent, must be regarded as formidable to the English; that if their

first fire, which is always the most dangerous, were allowed to languish

for want of action, if they were harassed with small skirmishes,

straitened in provisions, and fatigued with the bad weather and deep

roads during the winter season which was approaching, they must fall an

easy and a bloodless prey to their enemy; that if a general action were

delayed, the English, sensible of the imminent danger to which their

properties, as well as liberties, were exposed from those rapacious

invaders, would hasten from all quarters to his assistance, and would

render his army invincible; that, at least, if he thought it necessary

to hazard a battle, he ought not to expose his own person out reserve,

in case of disastrous accidents, some resource to the liberty and

independence of the kingdom; and that having once been so unfortunate

as to be constrained to swear, and that upon the holy relics, to support

the pretensions of the duke of Normandy, it were better that the command

of the army should be intrusted to another, who, not being bound by

those sacred ties, might give the soldiers more assured hopes of a

prosperous issue to the combat.

Harold was deaf to all these remonstrances. Elated with his past

prosperity, as well as stimulated by his native courage, he resolved to

give battle in person; and for that purpose he drew near to the Normans,

who had removed their camp and fleet to Hastings, where they fixed their

quarters. He was so confident of success, that he sent a message to

the duke, promising him a sum of money if he would depart the kingdom

without effusion of blood; but his offer was rejected with disdain; and

William, not to be behind with his enemy in vaunting, sent him a message

by some monks, requiring him either to resign the kingdom, or to hold

it of him in fealty, or to submit their cause to the arbitration of the

pope, or to fight him in single combat. Harold replied, that the God of

battles would soon be the arbiter of all their differences.[*]

The English and Normans now prepared themselves for this important

decision; but the aspect of things, on the night before the battle, was

very different in the two camps. The English spent the time in riot, and

jollity, and disorder; the Normans, in silence, and in prayer, and in

the other functions of their religion.[**]

[* Higden, p. 286]

[** W. Malms, p. 101. De Gest Angl. p. 332]

On the morning, the duke called together the most considerable of

his commanders, and made them a speech suitable to the occasion. He

represented to them, that the event which they and he had long wished

for, was approaching; the whole fortune of the war now depended on their

swords, and would be decided in a single action; that never army had

greater motives for exerting a vigorous courage, whether they

considered the prize which would attend their victory, or the inevitable

destruction which must ensue upon their discomfiture; that if their

martial and veteran bands could once break those raw soldiers, who had

rashly dared to approach them, they conquered a kingdom at one blow,

and were justly entitled to all its possessions as the reward of their

prosperous valor; that, on the contrary, if they remitted in the least

their wonted prowess, an enraged enemy hung upon their rear, the sea

met them in their retreat, and an ignominious death was the certain

punishment of their imprudent cowardice; that by collecting so numerous

and brave a host, he had insured every human means of conquest; and

the commander of the enemy, by his criminal conduct, had given him just

cause to hope for the favor of the Almighty, in whose hands alone

lay the event of wars and battles; and that a perjured usurper,

anathematized by the sovereign pontiff, and conscious of his own breach

of faith would be struck with terror on their appearance, and would

prognosticate to himself that fate which--his multiplied crimes had so

justly merited.[*] The duke next divided his army into three lines: the

first, led by Montgomery, consisted of archers and light-armed infantry;

the second, commanded by Martel, was composed of his bravest battalions,

heavy-armed, and ranged in close order; his cavalry, at whose head he

placed himself, formed the third line, and were so disposed, that they

stretched beyond the infantry, and flanked each wing of the army.[**] He

ordered the signal of battle to be given; and the whole army, moving

at once, and singing the hymn or song of Roland, the famous peer of

Charlemagne,[***] advanced, in order and with alacrity, towards the

enemy.

[* H. Hunting, p. 368. Brompton, p. 959. Gul.

Pict. p. 201.]

[** Gul. Pict. p. 201. Order. Vitalis, p. 501.]

[*** W. Malms, p. 101. Higden, p. 286. M. West. p.

223. Dr Cange’s Glossary, in verbo Cantilena Rolandi.]

Harold had seized the advantage of a rising ground, and having likewise

drawn some trenches to secure his flanks, he resolved to stand upon the

defensive, and to avoid all action with the cavalry, in which he was

inferior. The Kentish men were placed in the van; a post which they had

always claimed as their due: the Londoners guarded the standard; and

the king himself, accompanied by his two valiant brothers, Gurth and

Leofwin, dismounting, placed himself at the head of his infantry, and

expressed his resolution to conquer or to perish in the action. The

first attack of the Normans was desperate, but was received with equal

valor by the English; and after a furious combat, which remained long

undecided, the former, overcome by the difficulty of the ground, and

hard pressed by the enemy, began first to relax their vigor, then to

retreat; and confusion was spreading among the ranks; when William, who

found himself on the brink of destruction, hastened, with a select band,

to the relief of his dismayed forces. His presence restored the action;

the English were obliged to retire with loss; and the duke, ordering his

second line to advance, renewed the attack with fresh forces and with

redoubled courage. Finding that the enemy aided by the advantage of

ground, and animated by the example of their prince, still made a

vigorous resistance, he tried a stratagem which was very delicate in

its management, but which seemed advisable in his desperate situation,

where, if he gained not a decisive victory, he was totally undone: he

commanded his troops to make a hasty retreat, and to allure the enemy

from their ground by the appearance of flight. The artifice succeeded

against those unexperienced soldiers, who, heated by the action, and

sanguine in their hopes, precipitately followed the Normans into the

plain. William gave orders, that at once the infantry should face about

upon their pursuers, and the cavalry make an assault upon their wings,

and both of them pursue the advantage, which the surprise and terror

of the enemy must give them in that critical and decisive moment. The

English were repulsed with great slaughter, and driven back to the

hill; where, being rallied by the bravery of Harold, they were able,

notwithstanding their loss, to maintain the post and continue the

combat. The duke tried the same stratagem a second time with the same

success; but even after this double advantage, he still found a great

body of the English, who, maintaining themselves in firm array, seemed

determined to dispute the victory to the last extremity. He ordered his

heavy-armed infantry to make an assault upon them; while his archers,

placed behind, should gall the enemy, who were exposed by the situation

of the ground, and who were intent in defending themselves against the

swords and spears of the assailants. By this disposition he at last

prevailed: Harold was slain by an arrow, while he was combating with

great bravery at the head of his men; his two brothers shared the same

fate; and the English, discouraged by the fall of those princes, gave

ground on all sides, and were pursued with great slaughter by the

victorious Normans. A few troops, however, of the vanquished had still

the courage to turn upon their pursuers; and attacking them in deep and

miry ground, obtained some revenge for the slaughter and dishonor of the

day. But the appearance of the duke obliged them to seek their safety by

flight; and darkness saved them from any further pursuit by the enemy.

Thus was gained by William, duke of Normandy, the great and decisive

victory of Hastings, after a battle which was fought from morning till

sunset, and which seemed worthy, by the heroic valor displayed by both

armies and by both commanders, to decide the fate of a mighty kingdom.

William had three horses killed under him; and there fell near fifteen

thousand men on the side of the Normans: the loss was still more

considerable on that of the vanquished, besides the death of the king

and his two brothers. The dead body of Harold was brought to William,

and was generously restored without ransom to his mother. The Norman

army left not the field of battle without giving thanks to Heaven,

in the most solemn manner, for their victory: and the prince, having

refreshed his troops, prepared to push to the utmost his advantage

against the divided, dismayed, and discomfited English.

APPENDIX I.

THE ANGLO-SAXON GOVERNMENT AND MANNERS.

The government of the Germans, and that of all the northern nations who

established themselves on the ruins of Rome, was always extremely free;

and those fierce people, accustomed to independence and inured to arms,

were more guided by persuasion than authority in the submission which

they paid to their princes. The military despotism which had taken place

in the Roman empire, and which, previously to the irruption of those

conquerors, had sunk the genius of men, and destroyed every noble

principle of science and virtue, was unable to resist the vigorous

efforts of a free people; and Europe, as from a new epoch, rekindled her

ancient spirit, and shook off the base servitude to arbitrary will and

authority under which she had so long labored. The free constitutions

then established, however impaired by the encroachments of succeeding

princes, still preserve an air of independence and legal administration,

which distinguished the European nations; and if that part of the globe

maintain sentiments of liberty, honor, equity, and valor superior to the

rest of mankind, it owes these advantages chiefly to the seeds implanted

by those generous barbarians.

The Saxons who subdued Britain, as they enjoyed great liberty in their

own country, obstinately retained that invaluable possession in their

new settlement; and they imported into this island the same principles

of independence which they had inherited from their ancestors. The

chieftains, (for such they were, more properly than kings or princes,)

who commanded them in those military expeditions, still possessed a very

limited authority; and as the Saxons exterminated, rather than subdued,

the ancient inhabitants, they were indeed transplanted into a new

territory, but preserved unaltered all their civil and military

institutions. The language was pure Saxon; even the names of places,

which often remain while the tongue entirely changes, were almost all

affixed by the conquerors; the manners and customs were wholly German;

and the same picture of a fierce and bold liberty, which is drawn by

the masterly pencil of Tacitus, will suit those founders of the English

government. The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power,

was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority

depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even

so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for

his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which, though

proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of

a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community.

It is easy to imagine that an independent people, so little restrained

by law and cultivated by science, would not be very strict in

maintaining a regular succession of their princes. Though they paid

great regard to the royal family, and ascribed to it an undisputed

superiority, they either had no rule, or none that was steadily

observed, in filling the vacant throne; and present convenience, in that

emergency, was more attended to than general principles. We are

not, however, to suppose that the crown was considered as altogether

elective; and that a regular plan was traced by the constitution for

supplying, by the suffrages of the people, every vacancy made by the

demise of the first magistrate. If any king left a son of an age and

capacity fit for government, the young prince naturally stepped into the

throne: if he was a minor, his uncle, or the next prince of the blood,

was promoted to the government, and left the sceptre to his posterity:

any sovereign, by taking previous measures with the leading men, had it

greatly in his power to appoint his successor: all these changes, and

indeed the ordinary administration of government, required the express

concurrence, or at least the tacit acquiescence of the people; but

possession, however obtained, was extremely apt to secure their

obedience, and the idea of any right, which was once excluded was

but feeble and imperfect. This is so much the case in all barbarous

monarchies, and occurs so often in the history of the Anglo-Saxons, that

we cannot consistently entertain any other notion of their government.

The idea of an hereditary succession in authority is so natural to

men, and is so much fortified by the usual rule in transmitting private

possessions, that it must retain a great influence on every society,

which does not exclude it by the refinements of a republican

constitution. But as there is a material difference between gov-*

*ernment and private possessions, and every man is not as much qualified

for exercising the one as for enjoying the other, a people who are not

sensible of the general advantages attending a fixed rule are apt to

make great leaps in the succession, and frequently to pass over the

person, who, had he possessed the requisite years and abilities, would

have been thought entitled to the sovereignty. Thus these monarchies are

not, strictly speaking, either elective or hereditary; and though

the destination of a prince may often be followed in appointing his

successor, they can as little be regarded as wholly testamentary. The

states by their suffrage may sometimes establish a sovereign; but they

more frequently recognize the person whom they find established: a few

great men take the lead; the people, overawed and influenced, acquiesce

in the government; and the reigning prince, provided he be of the royal

family, passes undisputedly for the legal sovereign.

It is confessed that our knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon history and

antiquities is too imperfect to afford us means of determining with

certainty all the prerogatives of the crown and privileges of the

people, or of giving an exact delineation of that government. It is

probable, also, that the constitution might be somewhat different hi the

different kingdoms of the Heptarchy, and that it changed considerably

during the course of six centuries, which elapsed from the first

invasion of the Saxons till the Norman conquest.[*] But most of these

differences and changes, with their causes and effects, are unknown to

us; it only appears that, at all times and in all the kingdoms, there

was a national council, called a wittenagemot, or assembly of the wise

men, (for that is the import of the term,) whose consent was requisite

for enacting laws, and for ratifying the chief acts of public

administration.

[* We know of one change, not inconsiderable, in

the Saxon constitution. The Saxon Annals (p. 49) inform us,

that it was, in early times, the prerogative of the king to

name the dukes, earls, aldermen, and sheriffs of the

counties. Asser, a contemporary writer, informs us that

Alfred deposed all the ignorant aldermen, and appointed men

of more capacity in their place: yet the laws of Edward the

Confessor (sect. 35) say expressly that the heretoghs, or

dukes, and the sheriffs were chosen by the freeholders in

the folk-mote, a county court, which was assembled once a

year, and where all the freeholders swore allegiance to the

king.]

The preambles to all the laws of Ethelbert, Ina, Alfred, Edward the

Elder, Athelstan, Edmond, Edgar, Ethelred, and Edward the Confessor;

even those to the laws of Canute though a kind of conqueror, put this

matter beyond controversy, and carry proofs every where of a limited

and legal government. But who were the constituent members of this

wittenagemot has not been determined with certainty by antiquaries. It

is agreed that the bishops and abbots[*] were an essential part; and

it is also evident, from the tenor of those ancient laws, that the

wittenagemot enacted statutes which regulated the ecclesiastical as well

as civil government, and that those dangerous principles, by which the

church is totally severed from the state, were hitherto unknown to the

Anglo-Saxons.[**] It also appears that the aldermen or governors of

counties, who, after the Danish times, were often called earls,[***] [7]

were admitted into this council, and gave their consent to the public

statutes. But besides the prelates and aldermen, there is also mention

of the wites, or wisemen, as a component part of the wittenagemot; but

who these were is not so clearly ascertained by the laws or the history

of that period. The matter would probably be of difficult discussion,

even were it examined impartially; but as our modern parties have chosen

to divide on this point, the question has been disputed with the greater

obstinacy, and the arguments on both sides have become, on that account,

the more captious and deceitful. Our monarchical faction maintain that

these “wites,” or “sapientes,” were the judges, or men learned in

the law: the popular faction assert them to be representatives of the

boroughs, or what we now call the commons.

The expressions employed by all ancient historians in mentioning the

wittenagemot, seem to contradict the latter supposition. The members

are almost always called the “principes, satrapæ, optimates, magnates,

proceres;” terms which seem to suppose an aristocracy, and to exclude

the commons. The boroughs also, from the low state of commerce, were so

small and so poor, and the inhabitants lived in such dependence on the

great men,[****] that it seems nowise probable they would be admitted as

a part of the national councils. The commons are well known to have had

no share in the governments established by the Franks, Burgundians,

and other northern nations; and we may conclude that the Saxons, who

remained longer barbarous and uncivilized than those tribes, would

never think of conferring such an extraordinary privilege on trade and

industry.

[* Sometimes abbesses were admitted; at least they

often sign the king’s charters or grants. Spelm. Gloss. in

verbo Parliamentum.]

[** Wilkins, passim.]

[*** See note G, at the end of the volume.]

[**** Brady’s Treatise of English Boroughs, p. 3,

4, 5, etc.]

The military profession alone was honorable among all those conquerors:

the warriors subsisted by their possessions in land: they became

considerable by their influence over their vassals, retainers, tenants,

and slaves: and it requires strong proof to convince us that they would

admit any of a rank so much inferior as the burgesses, to share with

them in the legislative authority. Tacitus indeed affirms that, among

the ancient Germans, the consent of all the members of the community

was required in every important deliberation; but he speaks not of

representatives; and this ancient practice, mentioned by the Roman

historian, could only have place in small tribes, where every citizen

might without inconvenience be assembled upon any extraordinary

emergency. After principalities became extensive, after the difference

of property had formed distinctions more important than those which

arose from personal strength and valor, we may conclude that the

national assemblies must have been more limited in their number, and

composed only of the more considerable citizens.

But, though we must exclude the burgesses or commons from the Saxon

wittenagemot, there is some necessity for supposing that this assembly

consisted of other members than the prelates, abbots, alderman, and

the judges or privy council. For as all these, excepting some of the

ecclesiastics,[*] were anciently appointed by the king, had there been

no other legislative authority, the royal power had been, in a great

measure, absolute, contrary to the tenor of all the historians, and to

the practice of all the northern nations.

[* There is some reason to think that the bishops

were sometimes chosen by the wittenagemot, and confirmed by

the king. Eddius, cap. 2. The abbots in the monasteries of

royal foundation were anciently named by the king; though

Edgar gave the monks the election, and only reserved to

himself the ratification. This destination was afterwards

frequently violated, and the abbots as well as bishops were

afterwards all appointed by the king, as we learn from

Ingulf, a writer contemporary to the conquest.]

We may, therefore, conclude that the more considerable proprietors of

land were, without any election, constituent members of the national

assembly: there is reason to think that forty hides, or between four

and five thousand acres, was the estate requisite for entitling the

possessors to this honorable privilege. We find a passage in an ancient

author,[*] by which it appears that a person of very noble birth, even

one allied to the crown, was not esteemed a “princeps” (the term usually

employed by ancient historians, when the wittenagemot is mentioned) till

he had acquired a fortune of that amount. Nor need we imagine that the

public council would become disorderly or confused by admitting so great

a multitude. The landed property of England was probably in few hands

during the Saxon times, at least, during the latter part of that period;

and, as men had hardly any ambition to attend those public councils,

there was no danger of the assembly’s becoming too numerous for the

despatch of the little business which was brought before them.

It is certain that, whatever we may determine concerning the constituent

members of the wittenagemot, in whom, with the king, the legislature

resided, the Anglo-Saxon government, in the period preceding the Norman

conquest, was becoming extremely aristocratical: the royal authority

was very limited; the people, even if admitted to that assembly, were

of little or no weight and consideration. We have hints given us in

historians of the great power and riches of particular noblemen; and

it could not but happen, after the abolition of the Heptarchy, when

the king lived at a distance from the provinces, that those great

proprietors, who resided on their estates, would much augment their

authority over their vassals and retainers, and over all the inhabitants

of the neighborhood. Hence the immeasurable power assumed by Harold,

Godwin, Leofric, Siward, Morcar, Edwin, Edric, and Alfric who controlled

the authority of the kings, and rendered themselves quite necessary in

the government. The two latter, though detested by the people on account

of their joining a foreign enemy, still preserved their power and

influence; and we may therefore conclude that their authority was

founded, not on popularity, but on family rights and possessions. There

is one Athelstan, mentioned in the reign of the king of that name, who

is called alderman of all England, and is said to be half king; though

the monarch himself was a prince of valor and abilities.[**] And we find

that in the later Saxon times, and in these alone, the great offices

went from father to sun, and became in a manner hereditary in the

families.[A]

[* Hist. Eliensis, lib. ii. cap 40]

[** Hist. Rames. Beet. iii. p. 387]

The circumstances attending the invasions of the Danes would also serve

much to increase the power of the principal nobility. Those freebooters

made unexpected inroads on all quarters, and there was a necessity that

each county should resist them by its own force, and under the conduct

of its own nobility and its own magistrates. For the same reason that a

general war, managed by the united efforts of the whole state commonly

augments the power of the crown, those private wars and inroads turned

to the advantage of the aldermen and nobles.

Among that military and turbulent people, so averse to commerce and the

arts, and so little inured to industry, justice was commonly very ill

administered, and great oppression and violence seem to have prevailed.

These disorders would be increased by the exorbitant power of the

aristocracy; and would, in their turn, contribute to increase it. Men,

not daring to rely on the guardianship of the laws, were obliged to

devote themselves to the service of some chieftain, whose orders they

followed even to the disturbance of the government, or the injury of

their fellow-citizens, and who afforded them, in return, protection from

any insult or injustice by strangers. Hence we find, by the extracts

which Dr. Brady has given us from Domesday, that almost all the

inhabitants, even of towns, had placed themselves under the clientship

of some particular nobleman, whose patronage they purchased by annual

payments, and whom they were obliged to consider as their sovereign,

more than the king himself, or even the legislature.[B]

[A] Roger Hoveden, giving the reason why William the Conqueror

made Cospatric earl of Northumberland, says, “Nam ex materno

sanguine attinebat ad eum honor illius comitatus. Erat enim

ex matre Algitha, filia Uthredi comitis.” See also Sim.

Dunelm. p. 205. We see in those instances the same tendency

towards rendering offices hereditary which took place,

during a more early period, on the continent; and which had

already produced there its full effect.

[B] Brady’s Treatise of Boroughs, p. 3, 4, 5, etc. The case

was the same with the freemen in the country. See Pref. to

his Hist. p. 8, 9, 10, etc.

A client, though a freeman, was supposed so much to belong to his

patron, that his murderer was obliged by law to pay a fine to the

latter, as a compensation for his loss; in like manner as he paid a fine

to the master for the murder of his slave.[A] Men who were of a more

considerable rank, but not powerful enough each to support himself by

his own independent authority, entered into formal confederacies with

each other, and composed a kind of separate community, which rendered

itself formidable to all aggressors. Dr. Hickes has preserved a curious

Saxon bond of this kind, which he calls a “sodalitium,” and which

contains many particulars characteristical of the manners and customs

of the times.[B] All the associates are there said to be gentlemen of

Cambridgeshire; and they swear before the holy relics to observe their

confederacy, and to be faithful to each other: they promise to bury

any of the associates who dies, in whatever place he had appointed; to

contribute to his funeral charges, and to attend to his interment; and

whoever is wanting in this last duty, binds himself to pay a measure

of honey. When any of the associates is in danger, and calls for the

assistance of his fellows, they promise, besides flying to his succor,

to give information to the sheriff; and if he be negligent in protecting

the person exposed to danger, they engage to levy a fine of one pound

upon him; if the president of the society himself be wanting in this

particular, he binds himself to pay one pound; unless he has the

reasonable excuse of sickness, or of duty to his superior. When any

of the associates is murdered, they are to exact eight pounds from the

murderer; and if he refuse to pay it, they are to prosecute him for the

sum at their joint expense. If any of the associates, who happens to

be poor, kill a man, the society are to contribute, by a certain

proportion, to pay his fine,--a mark apiece, if the fine be seven

hundred shillings; less if the person killed be a clown or ceorle;

the half of that sum, again, if he be a Welshman But where any of the

associates kill a man wilfully and without provocation, he must himself

pay the fine. If any of the associates kill any of his fellows in a like

criminal manner, besides paying the usual fine to the relations of

the deceased, he must pay eight pounds to the society, or renounce the

benefit of it; in which case they bind themselves, under the penalty of

one pound, never to eat or drink with him, except in the presence of

the king, bishop, or alderman. There are other regulations to protect

themselves and their servants from all injuries, to revenge such as are

committed, and to prevent their giving abusive language to each other;

and the fine which they engage to pay for this last offence is a measure

of honey.

[A] LL. Edw. Conf. Sect. viii. apad Ingulph.

[B] Dissert. Epist. p. 21.

It is not to be doubted but a confederacy of this kind must have been a

great source of friendship and attachment, when men lived in perpetual

danger from enemies, robbers, and oppressors, and received protection

chiefly from their personal valor, and from the assistance of their

friends and patrons. As animosities were then more violent, connections

were also more intimate, whether voluntary or derived from blood: the

most remote degree of propinquity was regarded; an indelible memory of

benefits was preserved; severe vengeance was taken for injuries, both

from a point of honor and as the best means of future security; and the

civil union being weak, many private engagements were contracted, in

order to supply its place, and to procure men that safety, which the

laws and their own innocence were not alone able to insure to them.

On the whole, notwithstanding the seeming liberty, or rather

licentiousness, of the Anglo-Saxons, the great body, even of the free

citizens, in those ages, really enjoyed much less true liberty than

where the execution of the laws is the most severe, and where subjects

are reduced to the strictest subordination and dependence on the

civil magistrate. The reason is derived from the excess itself of that

liberty. Men must guard themselves at any price against insults and

injuries; and where they receive not protection from the laws and

magistrates, they will seek it by submission to superiors, and by

herding in some private confederacy, which acts under the direction of a

powerful leader. And thus all anarchy is the immediate cause of tyranny,

if not over the state, at least over many of the individuals.

Security was provided by the Saxon laws to all members of the

wittenagemot, both in going and returning, “except they were notorious

thieves and robbers.”

The German Saxons, as the other nations of that continent, were divided

into three ranks of men--the noble, the free, and the slaves.[A] This

distinction they brought over with them into Britain.

[A] Nithard. Hist. lib. iv.

The nobles were called thanes; and were of two kinds, the king’s thanes

and lesser thanes. The latter seem to have been dependent on the former,

and to have received lands, for which they paid rent, services, or

attendance in peace and war.[*] We know of no title which raised any one

to the rank of thane, except noble birth and the possession of land. The

former was always much regarded by all the German nations, even in their

most barbarous state; and as the Saxon nobility, having little credit,

could scarcely burden their estates with much debt, and as the commons

had little trade or industry by which they could accumulate riches’

these two ranks of men, even though they were not separated by positive

laws, might remain long distinct, and the noble families continue many

ages in opulence and splendor. There were no middle ranks of men, that

could gradually mix with their superiors, and insensibly procure to

themselves honor and distinction. If, by any extraordinary accident,

a mean person acquired riches, a circumstance so singular made him

be known and remarked; he became the object of envy, as well as of

indignation, to all the nobles; he would have great difficulty to defend

what he had acquired; and he would find it impossible to protect

himself from oppression, except by courting the patronage of some great

chieftain, and paying a large price for his safety.

There are two statutes among the Saxon laws, which seem calculated to

confound those different ranks of men; that of Athelstan, by which a

merchant, who had made three long sea voyages on his own account, was

entitled to the quality of thane;[**] and that of the same prince, by

which a ceorle, or husbandman, who had been able to purchase five hides

of land, and had a chapel, a kitchen, a hall, and a bell, was raised to

the same distinction.[***] But the opportunities were so few, by which a

merchant or ceorle could thus exalt himself above his rank, that the law

could never overcome the reigning prejudices; the distinction between

noble and base blood would still be indelible; and the well-born thanes

would entertain the highest contempt for those legal and factitious

ones. Though we are not informed of any of these circumstances by

ancient historians, they are so much founded on the nature of things,

that we may admit them as a necessary and infallible consequence of the

situation of the kingdom during those ages.

[* Spel. Feus and Tenures, p. 40.]

[** Wilkins, p. 71.]

[*** Selden, Titles of Honor, p, 515. Wilkins, p.

7.]

The cities appear by domesday-book to have been, at the conquest little

better than villages.[*] York itself, though it was always the second,

at least the third[**] city in England, and was the capital of a great

province, which never was thoroughly united with the rest, contained

then but one thousand four hundred and eighteen families.[***] Malmsbury

tells us,[****] that the great distinction between the Anglo-Saxon

nobility and the French and Norman, was, that the latter built

magnificent and stately castles; whereas the former consumed their

immense fortunes in riot and hospitality, and in mean houses. We may

thence infer, that the arts in general were much less advanced in

England than in France: a greater number of idle servants and retainers

lived about the great families; and as these, even in France, were

powerful enough to disturb the execution of the laws, we may judge of

the authority acquired by the aristocracy in England. When Earl Godwin

besieged the Confessor in London, he summoned from all parts his

huscarles, or houseceorles and retainers, and thereby constrained his

sovereign to accept of the conditions which he was pleased to impose

upon him.

The lower rank of freemen were denominated ceorles among the

Anglo-Saxons; and where they were industrious they were chiefly employed

in husbandry; whence a ceorle and a husbandman became in a manner

synonymous terms. They cultivated the farms of the nobility, or thanes,

for which they paid rent; and they seem to have been removable at

pleasure; for there is little mention of leases among the Anglo-Saxons:

the pride of the nobility, together with the general ignorance of

writing, must have rendered those contracts very rare, and must have

kept the husbandmen in a dependent condition. The rents of farms were

then chiefly paid in kind.[*****]

[* Winchester, being the capital of the West Saxon

monarchy, was anciently a considerable city. Gul. Pict. p.

210.]

[** Norwich contained 738 houses; Exeter, 315;

Ipswich, 538; Northampton, 60; Hertford, 146; Canterbury,

262; Bath, 61; Southampton 84; Warwick, 225. See Brady, of

Boroughs, p. 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. These are the most

considerable he mentions. The account of these is extracted

from domesday-book.]

[*** Brady’s Treatise of Boroughs, p. 10. There

were six wards, besides the archbishop’s palace; and five of

these wards contained the number of families here mentioned,

which at the rate of five persons to a family, makes about

seven thousand souls. The sixth ward was laid waste.]

[**** Page 102. See also de Gest. Angl. p. 333.]

[***** LL. Inae, sect. 70. These laws fixed the

rents for a hide; but it is difficult to convert it into

modern measures.]

But the most numerous rank by far in the community to have been the

slaves or villains, who were the property of their lords, and were

consequently incapable themselves of possessing any property. Dr. Brady

assures us, from a survey of domesday-book,[*] that, in all the counties

of England, the far greater part of the land was occupied by them, and

that the husbandmen, and still more the socmen, who were tenants that,

could not be removed at pleasure, were very few in comparison. This was

not the case with the German nations, as far as we can collect from the

account given us by Tacitus. The perpetual wars in the Heptarchy, and

the depredations of the Danes, seem to have been the cause of this great

alteration with the Anglo-Saxons. Prisoners taken in battle, or carried

off in the frequent inroads, were then reduced to slavery, and became,

by right of war,[**] entirely at the disposal of their lords.

Great property in the nobles, especially if joined to an irregular

administration of justice, naturally favors the power of the

aristocracy; but still more so, if the practice of slavery be admitted,

and has become very common. The nobility not only possess the influence

which always attends riches, but also the power which the laws give them

over their slaves and villains. It then becomes difficult, and almost

impossible, for a private man to remain altogether free and independent.

There were two kinds of slaves among the Anglo-Saxons; household slaves,

after the manner of the ancients, and praedial, or rustic, after the

manner of the Germans.[***] These latter resembled the serfs, which are

at present to be met with in Poland, Denmark, and some parts of Germany.

The power of a master over his slaves was not unlimited among the

Anglo-Saxons, as it was among their ancestors. If a man beat out his

slave’s eye or teeth, the slave recovered his liberty:[****] if he

killed him, he paid a fine to the king, provided the slave died within a

day after the wound or blow; otherwise it passed unpunished.[*****] The

selling of themselves or children to slavery, was always the

practice among the German nations,[******] and was continued by the

Anglo-Saxons.[*******]

[* General Preface to his Hist. p. 7, 8, 9, etc.]

[** LL. Edg. sect. 14, apud Spel. Concil. vol. i.

p. 471.]

[*** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Servus.]

[**** LL. Ælf. sect. 20]

[***** LL. Ælf. sect. 17.]

[****** Tacit, de Mor. Germ]

[******* LL. Inse, sect. 11. LL. Ælf. sect. 12.]

The great lords and abbots among the Anglo-Saxons possessed a criminal

jurisdiction within their territories, and could punish without appeal

any thieves or robbers whom they caught there.[*] This institution must

have had a very contrary effect to that which was intended, and must

have procured robbers a sure protection on the lands of such noblemen as

did not sincerely mean to discourage crimes and violence.

But though the general strain of the Anglo-Saxon government seems to

have become aristocratical, there were still considerable remains of

the ancient democracy, which were not indeed sufficient to protect the

lowest of the people, without the patronage of some great lord, but

might give security, and even some degree of dignity, to the gentry or

inferior nobility. The administration of justice, in particular, by

the courts of the decennary, the hundred, and the county, was well

calculated to defend general liberty, and to restrain the power of the

nobles. In the county courts, or shiremotes, all the freeholders were

assembled twice a year, and received appeals from the inferior courts.

They there decided all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil; and the

bishop, together with the alderman or earl, presided over them.[**]

The affair was determined in a summary manner, without much pleading

formality, or delay, by a majority of voices; and the bishop and

alderman had no further authority than to keep order among the

freeholders, and interpose with their opinion.[***] Where justice was

denied during three sessions by the hundred, and then by the county

court, there lay an appeal to the king’s court;[****] but this was not

practised on slight occasions. The aldermen received a third of the

fines levied in those courts;[*****] and as most of the punishments

were then pecuniary, this perquisite formed a considerable part of the

profits belonging to his office. The two thirds also, which went to the

king, made no contemptible part of the public revenue. Any free-holder

was fined who absented himself thrice from these courts.[******]

[* Higden, lib, i. cap. 50. LL. Edw. Conf. sect.

26. Spel. Concil vol. i. p. 415. Gloss, in verbo. Haligemot

ot Infangenthefe.]

[** LL. Edg. sect. 5. Wilkins, p. 78. LL. Cantit.

sect. 17. Wilkins. p. 136.]

[*** Hickes, Dissert, epist. p. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

8.]

[**** LL. Edg. sect. 2. Wilkins, p. 77. LL. Canut.

sect. 18, apud Wilkins, p. 136.]

[***** LL. Edw. Conf. sect. 31].

[****** LL. Ethelst. sect, 20.]

As the extreme ignorance of the age made deeds and writings very rare,

the county or hundred court was the place where the most remarkable

civil transactions were finished, in order to preserve the memory of

them, and prevent all future disputes. Here testaments were promulgated,

slaves manumitted, bargains of sale concluded, and sometimes, for

greater security, the most considerable of these deeds were inserted

in the blank leaves of the parish Bible, which thus became a kind of

register, too sacred to be falsified. It was not unusual to add to the

deed an imprecation on all such as should be guilty of that crime.[*]

[* Hickes, Dissert, epist.]

Among a people who lived in so simple a manner as the Anglo-Saxons, the

judicial power is always of greater importance than the legislative.

There were few or no taxes imposed by the states; there were few

statutes enacted; and the nation was less governed by laws, than by

customs, which admitted a great latitude of interpretation. Though it

should, therefore, be allowed, that the wittenagemot was altogether

composed of the principal nobility, the county courts, where all the

freeholders were admitted, and which regulated all the daily

occurrences of life, formed a wide basis for the government, and were no

contemptible checks on the aristocracy. But there is another power still

more important than either the judicial or legislative; to wit, the

power of injuring or serving by immediate force and violence, for which

it is difficult to obtain redress in courts of justice. In all extensive

governments, where the execution of the laws is feeble, this power

naturally falls into the hands of the principal nobility; and the

degree of it which prevails, cannot be determined so much by the public

statutes, as by small incidents in history, by particular customs, and

sometimes by the reason and nature of things. The highlands of Scotland

have long been entitled by law to every privilege of British subjects;

but it was not till very lately that the common people could in fact

enjoy these privileges.

The powers of all the members of the Anglo-Saxon government are disputed

among historians and antiquaries: the extreme obscurity of the subject,

even though faction had never entered into the question, would naturally

have begotten those controversies. But the great influence of the lords

over their slaves and tenants, the clientship of the burghers, the total

want of a middling rank of men, the extent of the mon archy, the loose

execution of the laws, the continued disorders and convulsions of the

state,--all these circumstances evince that the Anglo-Saxon government

became at last extremely aristocratical; and the events, during the

period immediately preceding the conquest, confirm this inference or

conjecture.

Both the punishments inflicted by the Anglo-Saxon courts of judicature,

and the methods of proof employed in all causes, appear somewhat

singular, and are very different from those which prevail at present

among all civilized nations.

We must conceive that the ancient Germans were little removed from the

original state of nature: the social confederacy among them was more

martial than civil: they had chiefly in view the means of attack or

defence against public enemies, not those of protection against their

fellow-citizens: their possessions were so slender and so equal, that

they were not exposed to great danger; and the natural bravery of the

people made every man trust to himself and to his particular friends for

his defence or vengeance. This defect in the political union drew much

closer the knot of particular confederacies: an insult upon any man was

regarded by all his relations and associates as a common injury: they

were bound by honor, as well as by a sense of common interest,

to revenge his death, or any violence which he had suffered: they

retaliated on the aggressor by like acts of violence; and if he were

protected, as was natural and usual, by his own clan, the quarrel was

spread still wider, and bred endless disorders in the nation.

The Frisians, a tribe of the Germans, had never advanced beyond this

wild and imperfect state of society; and the right of private revenge

still remained among them unlimited and uncontrolled.[*] But the other

German nations, in the age of Tacitus, had made one step farther towards

completing the political or civil union. Though it still continued to be

an indispensable point of honor for every clan to revenge the death or

injury of a member, the magistrate had acquired a right of interposing

in the quarrel, and of accommodating the difference. He obliged the

person maimed or injured, and the relations of one killed, to accept of

a present from the aggressor and his relations,[**] as a compensation

for the injury.[***] and to drop all farther prosecution of revenge.

That the accommodation of one quarrel might not be the source of more,

this present was fixed and certain according to the rank of the person

killed or injured, and was commonly paid in cattle, the chief property

of those rude and uncultivated nations.

[* LL. Fris. tit. 2, apud Lindenbrog. p. 491.]

[** LL. Æthelb, sect. 23. LL. Ælf. sect. 27]

[*** Called by the Saxons “maegbota.”]

A present of this kind gratified the revenge of the injured family by

the loss which the aggressor suffered: it satisfied then pride by the

submission which it expressed: it diminished their regret for the loss

or injury of a kinsman by their acquisition of new property; and thus

general peace was for a moment restored to the society.[*]

But when the German nations had been settled some time in the provinces

of the Roman empire, they made still another step towards a more

cultivated life, and their criminal justice gradually improved and

refined itself. The magistrate, whose office it was to guard public

peace, and to suppress private animosities, conceived himself to be

injured by every injury done to any of his people; and besides the

compensation to the person who suffered, or to his family, he thought

himself entitled to exact a fine, called the “fridwit,” as an atonement

for the breach of peace, and as a reward for the pains which he had

taken in accommodating the quarrel. When this idea, which is so natural,

was once suggested, it was willingly received both by sovereign and

people. The numerous fines which were levied, augmented the revenue of

the king; and the people were sensible that he would be more vigilant

in interposing with his good offices, when he reaped such immediate

advantage from them; and that injuries would be less frequent, when,

besides compensation to the person injured, that they were exposed to

this additional penalty.[**]

[* Tacit, de Mor. Germ. The author says, that the

price of the composition was fixed; which must have been by

the laws, and the interposition of the magistrates.]

[** Besides paying money to the relations of the

deceased, and to the king, the murderer was also obliged to

pay the master of a slave of vassal a sum, as a compensation

for his loss. This was called the “manbote” See Spel. Gloss,

in verb. Fredum, Manbot.]

This short abstract contains the history of the criminal jurisprudence

of the northern nations for several centuries. The state of England in

this particular, during the period of the Anglo-Saxons, may be judged of

by the collection of ancient laws, published by Lambard and Wilkins.

The chief purport of these laws is not to prevent or entirely suppress

private quarrels, which the legislators knew to be impossible, but only

to regulate and moderate them. The laws of Alfred enjoin, that if

any one know that his enemy or aggressor, after doing him an injury,

resolves to keep within his own house _and his own lands_[*] he

shall not fight him, till he require compensation for the injury. If

he be strong enough to besiege him in his house, he may do it for seven

days without attacking him; and if the aggressor be a willing, during

that time, to surrender himself and his arms, his, adversary may detain

him thirty days, but is afterwards obliged to restore him safe to his

kindred, “and be content with the compensation.” If the criminal fly to

the temple, that sanctuary must not be violated. Where the assailant has

not force sufficient to besiege the criminal in his house, he must

apply to the alderman for assistance; and if the alderman refuse aid

the assailant must have recourse to the king; and he is not allowed

to assault the house till after this supreme magistrate has refused

assistance. If any one meet with his enemy, and be ignorant that he was

resolved to keep within his own lands he must, before he attack him,

require him to surrender him self prisoner, and deliver up his arms; in

which case he may detain him thirty days; but if he refuse to deliver

up his arms it is then lawful to fight him. A slave may fight in his

master’s quarrel: a father may fight in his son’s with any one except

with his master.[**]

It was enacted by King Ina, that no man should take revenge for an

injury till he had first demanded compensation, and had been refused

it.[***]

[* The addition of these last words is Italics

appears necessary from what follows in the same law.]

[** IL. Ælf. sect. 28. Wilkins, p. 43.]

[*** LL. Inae sect. 9]

King Edmond, in the preamble to his laws, mentions the general misery

occasioned by the multiplicity of private feuds and battles; and he

establishes several expedients for remedying this grievance. He ordains

that if any one commit murder, he may, with the assistance of his

kindred, pay within a twelvemonth the fine of his crime; and if they

abandon him, he shall alone sustain the deadly feud or quarrel with the

kindred of the murdered person: his own kindred are free from the feud,

but on condition that they neither converse with the criminal, nor

supply him with meat or other necessaries: if any of them, after

renouncing him, receive him into their house, or give him assistance,

they are finable to the king, and are involved in the feud. If the

kindred of the murdered person take revenge on any but the criminal

himself, after he is abandoned by his kindred, all their property is

forfeited, and they are declared to be enemies to the king and all his

friends.[*] It is also ordained that the fine for murder shall never be

remitted by the king,[**] and that no criminal shall be killed who flies

to the church, or any of the king’s towns;[***] and the king himself

declares, that his house shall give no protection to murderers, till

they have satisfied the church by their penance, and the kindred of

the deceased by making compensation.[****] The method appointed for

transacting this composition is found in the same law.[*****]

These attempts of Edmond, to contract and diminish the feuds, were

contrary to the ancient spirit of the northern barbarians, and were a

step towards a more regular administration of justice. By the salic law,

any man-night, by a public declaration, exempt himself from his family

quarrels: but then he was considered by the law as no longer belonging

to the family; and he was deprived of all right of succession, as the

punishment of his cowardice.[******]

The price of the king’s head, or his weregild, as it was then called,

was by law thirty thousand thrimsas, near thirteen hundred pounds of

present money. The price of the prince’s head was fifteen thousand

thrimsas; that of a bishop’s or alderman’s, eight thousand; a sheriff’s,

four thousand; a thane’s or clergyman’s, two thousand; a ceorle’s,

two hundred and sixty-six. These prices were fixed by the laws of the

Angles. By the Mercian law, the price of a ceorle’s head was two hundred

shillings; that of a thane’s, six times as much; that of a king’s, six

times more.[*******] By the laws of Kent, the price of the archbishop’s

head was higher than that of the king’s.[********] Such respect was then

paid to the ecclesiastics! It must be understood, that where a

person was unable or unwilling to pay the fine, he was put out of the

protection of law, and the kindred of the deceased had liberty to punish

him as they thought proper.

Some antiquaries [*********] have thought that these compensations were

only given for manslaughter, not for wilful murder.

[* LL. Edm. sect,. 1. Wilkins, p. 73.]

[** LL. Edm. sect. 3.]

[*** LL. Edm. sect. 2.]

[**** LL. Edm. sect. 4.]

[***** LL. Edm. sect. 7,]

[****** Tit. 63.]

[******* Wilkins, p. 71, 72]

[******** LL. Elthredi, apud Wilkins, p. 110.]

[********* Tyrrel, Introduct. vol. i. p. 120. Carte vol i.

p. 366.]

But no such distinction appears in the laws; and it is contradicted

by the practice of all the other barbarous nations,[*] by that of the

ancient Germans,[**] and by that curious monument above mentioned of

Saxon antiquity, preserved by Hickes. There is indeed a law of Alfred’s

which makes wilful murder capital;[***] but this seems only to have been

an attempt of that great legislator towards establishing a better police

in the kingdom, and it probably remained without execution. By the laws

of the same prince, a conspiracy against the life of the king might be

redeemed by a fine.[****]

The price of all kinds of wounds was likewise fixed by the Saxon laws: a

wound of an inch long under the hair was paid with one shilling: one of

a like size in the face, two shillings; thirty shillings for the loss of

an ear; and so forth.[*****] There seems not to have been any difference

made, according to the dignity of the person. By the laws of Ethelbert,

any one who committed adultery with his neighbor’s wife was obliged to

pay him a fine, and buy him another wife.[******]

These institutions are not peculiar to the ancient Germans. They seem

to be the necessary progress of criminal jurisprudence among every free

people, where the will of the sovereign is not implicitly obeyed. We

find them among the ancient Greeks during the time of the Trojan war.

Compositions for murder are mentioned in Nestor’s speech to Achilles, in

the ninth Iliad, and are called [Greek: apoinai]. The Irish, who never

had any connections with the German nations, adopted the same practice

till very lately; and the price of a man’s head was called among them

his “eric;” as we learn from Sir John Davis. The same custom seems also

to have prevailed among the Jews.[*******]

Theft and robbery were frequent among the Anglo-Saxons In order to

impose some check upon these crimes, it was ordained, that no man

should sell or buy any thing above twenty pence value, except in open

market;[********] and every bargain of sale must be executed before

witnesses.[*********]

[1: Lindenbrogius, passim.]

[2: Tacit, de Mor. Germ.]

[3: LL. Ælf. sect. 12. Wilkins, p. 29. It is

probable that by wilful murder Alfred means a treacherous

murder, committed by one who has no declared feud with

another.]

[4: LL. Ælf. sect. 4. Wilkins, p. 35.]

[5: LL. Ælf. sect. 40. See also LL. Ethelb. sect.

34, etc.]

[6: LL Ethelb. sect. 32.]

[7: Exod. cap. xxi. 29, 30.]

[8: LL. Æthelst. sect. 12.]

[9: LL. Æthelst. sect. 10, 12. LL.Edg. apud

Wilkins, p. 80. LL Ethelredi, sect 4, apud Wilkins, p. 103.

Hloth. et Eadm. sect 16. LL. Canute. sect. 22.]

Gangs of robbers much disturbed the peace of the country, and the law

determined that a tribe of banditti, consisting of between seven and

thirty-five persons, was to be called a “turma,” or troop; any greater

company was denominated an army.[*] The punishments for this crime were

various, but none of them capital.[**] If any man could track his stolen

cattle into another’s ground, the latter was obliged to show the tracks

out of it, or pay their value.[***]

Rebellion, to whatever excess it was carried, was not capital but

might be redeemed by a sum of money.[****] The legislators, knowing

it impossible to prevent all disorders, only imposed a higher fine

on breaches of the peace committed in the king’s court, or before an

alderman or bishop. An ale-house, too, seems to have been considered as

a privileged place; and any quarrels that arose there were more severely

punished than else where.[*****]

[* LL. Inæ, sect. 12.]

[* LL. Inæ, sect. 37.]

[* LL. Æthelst. sect. 2. Wilkins, p. 63.]

[* LL. Ethelredi, apud Wilkins, p. 110. LL. Ælf. sect. 4.

Wilkins, p35.]

[* LL. Hloth. et Eadm. sect. 12, 13. LL. Ethelr. apud

Wilkins, P 117.]

If the manner of punishing crimes among the Anglo-Saxons appear

singular, the proofs were not less so; and were also the natural result

of the situation of those people. Whatever we may imagine concerning the

usual truth and sincerity of men who live in a rude and barbarous state,

there is much more falsehood, and even perjury, among them, than among

civilized nations: virtue, which is nothing but a more enlarged and more

cultivated reason, never flourishes to any degree, nor is founded

on steady principles of honor, except where a good education becomes

general; and where men are taught the pernicious consequences of vice,

treachery, and immorality. Even superstition, though more prevalent

among ignorant nations, is but a poor supply for the defects in

knowledge and education; our European ancestors, who employed every

moment the expedient of swearing on extraordinary crosses and relics,

were less honorable in all engagements than their posterity, who from

experience have omitted those ineffectual securities. This general

proneness to assumed perjury was much increased by the usual want of

discernment in judges, who could not discuss an intricate evidence, and

were obliged to number, not weigh, the testimony of the witnesses,[*]

Hence the ridiculous practice of obliging men to bring compurgators,

who, as they did not pretend to know any thing of the fact, expressed

upon oath, that they believed the person spoke true; and these

compurgators were in some cases multiplied to the number of three

hundred.[**] The practice also of single combat was employed by most

nations on the continent as a remedy against false evidence;[***] and

though it was frequently dropped, from the opposition of the clergy, it

was continually revived, from experience of the falsehood attending

the testimony of witnesses.[****] It became at last a species of

jurisprudence: the cases were determined by law, in which the

party might challenge his adversary or the witnesses, or the judge

himself;[*****] and though these customs were absurd, they were rather

an improvement on the methods of trial which had formerly been practised

among those barbarous nations, and which still prevailed among the

Anglo-Saxons.

[* Præf. Nicol. ad Wilkins, p. 11.]

[** LL. Burgund. cap. 45. LL. Lomb. lib. ii. tit.

55, cap. 34.]

[*** LL. Longob. lib. ii. tit. 55, cap. 23, apud

Lindenbrog. p. 661]

[**** See Desfontaines and Beaumanoir.]

[***** Sometimes the laws fixed easy general rules

for weighing the credibility of witnesses. A man whose life

was estimated at a hundred and twenty shillings,

counterbalanced six ceorles, each of whose lives was only

valued at twenty shillings, and his oath was esteemed

equivalent to that of all the six. See Wilkins, p. 72.]

When any controversy about a fact became too intricate for those

ignorant judges to unravel, they had recourse to what they called the

judgment of God, that is, to fortune. Their methods of consulting this

oracle were various. One of them was the decision by the cross: it was

practised in this manner: When a person was accused of any crime,

he first cleared himself by oath, and he was attended by eleven

compurgators. He next took two pieces of wood, one of which was marked

with the sign of the cross, and wrapping both up in wool, he placed them

on the altar, or on some celebrated relic. After solemn prayers for the

success of the experiment, a priest, or in his stead some unexperienced

youth, took up one of the pieces of wood, and if he happened upon that

which was marked with the figure of the cross, the person was pronounced

innocent; if otherwise, guilty. [*] This practice, as it arose from

superstition, was abolished by it in France.

[* LL. Prison, tit. 14, apud Lindenbrog. p. 496.

trial, not because it was uncertain, but lest that sacred

figure says he, of the cross should be prostituted in common

disputes and controversies.]

The ordeal was another established method of trial among Saxons. It

was practised either by boiling water or red-hot iron. The former was

appropriated to the common people; the latter to the nobility. The

water or iron was consecrated by many prayers, masses, fastings, and

exorcisms,[*] after which, the person accused either took up a stone

sunk in the water[**] to a certain depth, or carried the iron to a

certain distance; and his hand being wrapped up, and the covering sealed

for three days, if there appeared, on examining it, no marks of burning,

he was pronounced innocent; if otherwise, guilty.[***] The trial by cold

water was different: the person was thrown into consecrated water; if he

swam, he was guilty, if he sunk, innocent.[****] It is difficult for us

to conceive how any innocent person could ever escape by the one trial,

or any criminal be convicted by the other. But there was another usage

admirably calculated for allowing every criminal to escape, who had

confidence enough to try it. A consecrated cake, called a corsned,

was produced, which if the person could swallow and digest, he was

pronounced innocent.[******]

The feudal law, if it had place at all among the Anglo-Saxons, which is

doubtful, was not certainly extended over all the landed property, and

was not attended with those consequences of homage, reliefs,[*******]

wardship, marriage, and other burdens, which were inseparable from it

in the kingdoms of the continent. As the Saxons expelled, or almost

entirely destroyed, the ancient Britons, they planted themselves in this

island on the same footing with their ancestors in Germany, and found no

occasion for the feudal institutions,[********] which were calculated

to maintain a kind of standing army, always in readiness to suppress any

insurrection among the conquered people.

[* Du Cange, in verbo Crux.]

[** Spel in verbo Ordealium. Parker, p. 155.

Lindenbrog. p, 1299]

[*** LL. Inæ, sect. 77.]

[**** Sometimes the person accused walked barefoot

over a red hot iron]

[***** Spel in verbo Ordealium.]

[****** Spel in verbo Corsned. Parker, p. 156.

Text. Roffens. p. 33.]

[******* On the death of an alderman, a greater or

lesser thane, there was a payment made to the king of his

best arms; and this was called his heriot; but this was not

of the nature of a relief. See Spel. of Tenures, p. 2. The

value of this heriot was fixed by Canute’s laws, sect. 69.]

[******** Bracton de Acqu. Rer. Domin. ii. cap.

16. See more fully Spel of Feus and Tenures, and Q aigius de

Jure Feud, lib. i. dieg.]

The trouble and expense of defending the state in England lay equally

upon all the land; and it was usual for every five hides to equip a

man for the service. The “trinoda necessitas,” as it was called, or the

burden of military expeditions, of repairing highways, and of building

and supporting bridges, was inseparable from landed property, even

though it belonged to the church or monasteries, unless exempted by a

particular charter.[*] The ceorles, or husbandmen, were provided with

arms, and were obliged to take their turn in military duty.[**] There

were computed to be two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred

hides in England;[***] consequently the ordinary military force of the

kingdom consisted of forty-eight thousand seven hundred and twenty men;

though, no doubt, on extraordinary occasions, a greater number might

be assembled. The king and nobility had some military tenants, who were

called “sithcun-men.”[****] And there were some lands annexed to the

office of aldermen, and to other offices; but these probably were not

of great extent, and were possessed only during pleasure, as in the

commencement of the feudal law in other countries of Europe.

The revenue of the king seems to have consisted chiefly in his demesnes,

which were large; and in the tolls and imposts which he probably levied

at discretion on the boroughs and seaports that lay within his demesnes.

He could not alienate any part of the crown lands, even to religious

uses, without the consent of the states.[*****] Danegelt was a land-tax

of a shilling a hide, imposed by the states,[******] either for payment

of the sums exacted by the Danes, or for putting the kingdom in a

posture of defence against those invaders.[*******]

The Saxon pound, as likewise that which was coined for some centuries

after the conquest, was near three times the weight of our present

money. There were forty-eight shillings in the pound, and five pence

in a shilling;[********] consequently a Saxon shilling was near a

fifth heavier than ours, and a Saxon penny near three times as

heavy.[*********]

[* Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 256.]

[** Inæ, sect. 51.]

[*** Spel. of Feus and Tenures, p. 17.]

[**** Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 195.]

[***** Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 340.]

[****** Chron. Sax. p. 128.]

[******* LL. Edw. Conf. sect. 12.]

[******** LL. Ælf. sect. 40.]

[********* Fleetwood’s Chron. Pretiosum, p. 27 28, etc.]

As to the value of money in those times, compared to commodities, there

are some though not very certain, means of computation. A sheep, of the

laws of Athelstan, was estimated at a shilling; that is, fifteen pence

of our money. The fleece was two fifths of the value of the whole

sheep,[*] much above its present estimation; and the reason probably

was, that the Saxons, like the ancients, were little acquainted with any

clothing but what was made of wool. Silk and cotton were quite unknown:

linen was not much used. An ox was computed at six times the value of

a sheep; a cow at four.[**] If we suppose that the cattle in that age,

from the defects in husbandry, were not so large as they are at present

in England, we may compute that money was then near ten times of greater

value. A horse was valued at about thirty-six shillings of our money,

or thirty Saxon shillings;[***] a mare a third less. A man at three

pounds.[****] The board-wages of a child the first year was eight

shillings, together with a cow’s pasture in summer, and an ox’s in

winter.[*****] William of Malmsbury mentions it as a remarkably high

price that William Rufus gave fifteen marks for a horse, or about thirty

pounds of our present money.[******] Between the years 900 and 1000,

Ednoth bought a hide of land for about one hundred and eighteen

shillings of present money.[*******] This was little more than a

shilling an acre, which indeed appears to have been the usual price,

as we may learn from other accounts.[********] A palfrey was sold for

twelve shillings about the year 966.[*********] The value of an ox in

King Ethel ed’s[** word?] time was between seven and eight shillings;

a cow about six shillings.[*********] Gervas of Tilbury says, that in

Henry I’s time, bread which would suffice a hundred men for a day was

rated at three shillings, or a shilling of that age: for it is thought

that soon after the conquest a pound sterling was divided into twenty

shillings. A sheep was rated at a shilling, and so of other things in

proportion. In Athelstan’s time, a ram was valued at a shilling, or

fourpence Saxon.[**********] The tenants of Shireburn were obliged, at

their choice, to pay either sixpence or four hens.[***********]

[* LL. Inse, sect. 69.]

[** Wilkins, p. 126.

[*** LL. Inse, sect. 38.]

[**** Hist. Eliens. p. 471]

[***** Wilkins, p. 56.]

[****** Wilkins, p. 66.]

[******* Wilkins, p. 126.]

[******** Page 121.]

[********* Hist. Eliens. p. 473.]

[********** Wilkins, p. 126.]

[*********** Monast. Anglie. vol. ii. p. 528.]

About 1232, the abbot of St. Alban’s, going on a journey, hired seven

handsome, stout horses; and agreed, if any of them died on the road, to

pay the owner thirty shillings apiece of our present money.[*] It is to

be remarked, that in all ancient times the raising of corn, especially

wheat, being a species of manufactory, that commodity always bore a

higher price, compared to cattle, than it does in our times.[**] The

Saxon Chronicle tells us,[***] that in the reign of Edward the Confessor

there was the most terrible famine ever known; insomuch that a quarter

of wheat rose to sixty pennies, or fifteen shillings of our present

money. Consequently, it was as dear as if it now cost seven pounds

ten shillings. This much exceeds the great famine in the end of Queen

Elizabeth, when a quarter of wheat was sold for four pounds. Money in

this last period was nearly of the same value as in our time. These

severe famines are a certain proof of bad husbandry.

[* M. Paris].

[** Fleetwood. p. 83, 94, 96. 98]

[*** Page 157.]

On the whole, there are three things to be considered, wherever a sum of

money is mentioned in ancient times. First, the change of denomination,

by which a pound has been reduced to the third part of its ancient

weight in silver. Secondly, the change in value by the greater plenty

of money, which has reduced the same weight of silver to ten times less

value, compared to commodities; and consequently a pound sterling to the

thirtieth part of the ancient value. Thirdly, the fewer people and less

industry which were then to be found in every European kingdom. This

circumstance made even the thirtieth part of the sum more difficult to

levy, and caused any sum to have more than thirty times greater weight

and influence, both abroad and at home, than in our times; in the

same manner that a sum, a hundred thousand pounds, for instance, is at

present more difficult to levy in a small state, such as Bavaria, and

can produce greater effects on such a small community than on England.

This last difference is not easy to be calculated; but, allowing that

England has now six times more industry, and three times more people

than it had at the conquest, and for some reigns after that period,

we are upon that supposition to conceive, taking all circumstances

together, every sum of money mentioned by historians, as if it were

multiplied more than a hundred fold above a sum of the same denomination

at present.

In the Saxon times, land was divided equally among all the male children

of the deceased, according to the custom of gavelkind. The practice of

entails is to be found in those times.[*] Land was chiefly of two kinds,

bockland, or land held by book or charter, which was regarded as full

property, and descended to the heirs of the possessor; and folkland, or

the land held by the ceorles and common people, who were removable at

pleasure, and were, indeed, only tenants during the will of their lords.

The first attempt which we find in England to separate the

ecclesiastical from the civil jurisdiction, was that law of Edgar by

which all disputes among the clergy were ordered to be carried before

the bishop.[**] The penances were then very severe; but as a man could

buy them off with money, or might substitute others to perform them,

they lay easy upon the rich.[***]

With regard to the manners of the Anglo-Saxons, we can say little,

but that they were in general a rude, uncultivated people, ignorant of

letters, unskilled in the mechanical arts, untamed to submission under

law and government, addicted to intemperance, riot, and disorder. Their

best quality was their military courage, which yet was not supported by

discipline or conduct. Their want of fidelity to the prince, or to any

trust reposed in them, appears strongly in the history of their later

period; and their want of humanity in all their history. Even the Norman

historians, notwithstanding the low state of the arts in their own

country, speak of them as barbarians, when they mention the invasion

made upon them by the duke of Normandy.[****] The conquest put the

people in a situation of receiving slowly, from abroad, the rudiments

of science and cultivation, and of correcting their rough and licentious

manners.

[* LL. Ælf. sect. 37, apud Wilkins, p. 43.]

[** Wilkins, p. 83.]

[*** Wilkins, p. 96, 97. Spel. Concil. p. 473.]

[**** Gul, Pict. p. 202.]