THE WITENA GEMÓT.
The conquest of the Roman provinces in Europe was accomplished by
successive bands of adventurers, ranged under the banners of various
leaders, whom ambition, restlessness or want of means had driven from
their homes. But the conquest once achieved, the strangers settled down
upon the territory they had won, and became the nucleus of nations: in
their new settlements they adopted the rules and forms of institutions
to which they had been accustomed in their ancient home, subject indeed
to such modifications as necessarily resulted from the mode of the
conquest, and their new position among vanquished populations, generally
superior to themselves in the arts of civilized life. If we carefully
examine the nature of these ventures, we shall I think come to the
conclusion that they were carried on upon what may be familiarly termed
the joint-stock principle. The owner of a ship, the supplier of the
weapons or food necessary to set the business on foot, is the great
capitalist of the company: the man of skill and judgment and experience
is listened to with respect and cheerfully obeyed: the strong arms and
unflinching courage of the multitude complete the work: and when the
prize is won, the profits are justly divided among the winners,
according to the value of each man’s contribution to the general
utility[472]. But in such voluntary associations as these, it is clear
that every man retains a certain amount of free will, that he has a
right to consult, discuss and advise, to assent to or dissent from the
measures proposed to be adopted: even the council of war of such a band
must differ very much from what in our day goes by that name; where a
few officers of high rank decide, and the mass of the army blindly
execute their plans. It cannot then surprise us that in such cases
everything should be done with the counsel, consent and leave of the
associated adventurers. The bands were then not too numerous for general
consultation: there was no fear lest treachery or weakness should betray
the plans to an enemy: the necessities of self-preservation guaranteed
the faith of every individual; for, camped among hostile and exasperated
populations, ignorant of their tongue, and remote from them in manners,
the German straggler, captive or deserter could look forward to nothing
save a violent death or a life of weary slavery. Mutual participation in
danger must have given rise to mutual trust.
-----
Footnote 472:
This is not hypothetical or imaginary. The settlements in Iceland were
positively made upon this principle, and by it the subsequent
divisions of the land were regulated.
-----
Again the principle upon which the settlement of the land was effected,
was that of associations for common benefits, and a mutual guarantee of
peaceful possession[473]. Each man stood engaged to his neighbour, both
as to what he would himself avoid, and as to what he would maintain. The
public weal was the immediate interest of every individual member of the
state; it came home to him at every instant of his life, directly,
pressing him either in his property, his freedom or his peace, not
through a long and accidental chain of distant causes and results.
Moreover in an association based upon the individual freedom of the
associates, each man had a right to guard the integrity of the compact
to which he was himself a party; and not only a right, but a strong
interest in exercising it, for in proportion to the smallness of the
state, is the effect which the conduct of any single member may produce
upon its welfare. But wherever free men meet on equal terms of alliance,
the will of the majority is the law of the state. If the minority be
small it must submit, or suffer for rebellion: if large, and capable of
independent action and subsistence, it may peaceably separate from the
majority, renounce its intimate alliance, and emigrate to new
settlements, where it may at its own leisure, and in its own way,
develop its peculiar views of polity, leaving to fortune or to the gods
to decide the abstract question of right between itself and its
opponents. How then is the will of the majority to be ascertained? Where
the number of citizens is small, the question is readily answered: by
the decision of a public meeting at which all may be present.
-----
Footnote 473:
The Acts, if we may so call them, of an Anglosaxon parliament, are a
series of _treaties of peace_, between all the associations which make
up the state; a continual revision and renewal of the alliances
offensive and defensive, of all the free men. They are universally
mutual contracts for the maintenance of the frið or peace. Those who
chose to do so, might withdraw from this contract, but they must take
the consequence. The witan had no money to vote, except in very rare
and extreme cases; consequently their business was confined to
regulating the terms on which the frið could be maintained.
-----
Now such public meetings or councils we find in existence among the
Germans from their very first appearance in history. The graphic pen of
Tacitus has left us a lively description of their nature and powers, and
in some degree their forms of business. He says[474],—“In matters of
minor import, the chiefs take counsel together; in weightier affairs,
the whole body of the state: but in such wise, that the chiefs have the
power of discussing and recommending even those measures, which the will
of the people ultimately decides. They meet, except some sudden and
fortuitous event occur, on fixed days, either at new or full moon....
This inconvenience arises from their liberty, that they do not assemble
at once, or at the time for which they are summoned, but a second or
even a third day is wasted by the delay of those who are to meet. They
sit down, in arms, just as it suits the convenience of the crowd.
Silence is enjoined by the priests, who, on these occasions, have even
the power of coercion. Then the king, or the prince, or any one, whom
his age, nobility, his honours won in war or his eloquence may authorise
to speak, is listened to, more through the influence of persuasion than
the power of command. If his opinion do not please them, they reject it
with murmurs: if it do, they dash their lances together. The most
honourable form of assent is adoption by clashing of arms. It is lawful
also to bring accusations, and prosecute capitally before the council.
The punishment varies with the crime. Traitors and deserters they hang
on trees; cowards, the unwarlike, and infamous of body they bury alive
in mud and marsh, with a hurdle cast over them: the difference of the
penalty has this intention as it were, that crimes should be made
public, but infamous vices hidden, while being punished.... In the same
councils also, princes are elected, to give law in the shires and
villages. Each has a hundred comrades from among the people, both to
advise him and add to his authority. They transact no business either of
a public or private nature, without their weapons. But it is not the
custom for any one to begin wearing them, before the state has approved
of him as likely to be an efficient citizen. Then, in the public meeting
itself, either one of the chiefs, or his father or a kinsman, decorates
the youth with a shield and javelin. This is their _Toga_; this is the
first dignity of their youth: before this they appear part of a
household,—after it, of a state.”
-----
Footnote 474:
Germ. xi. xii. xiii.
-----
Such then was the nature of a Teutonic parliament as Tacitus had learnt
that it existed in his time; nor is there the least doubt that he has
described it most truly. And such were all the popular meetings of later
periods, whether shiremoots, markmoots, or the great _placita_ of
kingdoms, folkmoots in the most extended sense of the term. Such, at
least in theory, and to a great extent in practice, were the meetings of
the Franks under the Merwingian kings, and even under the Carolings. It
will not be uninteresting or without advantage to compare with this
account the description which Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, gives of
the institution as recognised and organized by Charlemagne, a prince by
nature not over well disposed to popular freedom, and by circumstances
placed in a situation to be very dangerous to it[475].
-----
Footnote 475:
What follows is abstracted from Hincmar, Epistola de ordine Palatii,
as cited and commented upon by Dönniges, p. 74, etc.
-----
Charlemagne held Reichstage or Parliaments twice a year, in May and
again in the autumn, for the general arrangement of the public business.
The earlier of these was attended by the principal officers of state,
the ministers as we should call them, both lay and clerical, the
administrators of the public affairs in the provinces, and other persons
engaged in the business of government. These, who are comprehended under
the titles of Maiores, Seniores, Optimates, may possibly have had the
real conduct of the deliberations; but there is no doubt that the
freemen were also present, first because the general armed muster or
Hereban took place at the same time,—the well-known Campus Madius or
Champ de Mai,—and partly because we know that all new capitularies added
to the existing law were subjected to their approval[476]. We may
therefore conclude that they were still possessed of a share in the
business of legislation, although it may have only amounted to a right
of accepting or rejecting the propositions of others. The king had his
particular curia, court or council, the members of which were chosen
(“eligebantur”), though how or by whom we know not, from the laity and
the clergy: probably both the king and the people had their share in the
election. The Seniores, according to Hincmar, were called “propter
consilium ordinandum,” to lead the business; the Minores, “propter idem
consilium suscipiendum,” to accept the same; but also “interdum pariter
tractandum,” sometimes to take a part also in the discussions, “and to
confirm them, not indeed by any inherent power of their own, but by the
moral influence of their judgment and opinion.”
-----
Footnote 476:
“Ut populus interrogetur de capitulis quae in lege noviter addita
sunt. Et postquam omnes consenserint, subscriptiones suas in ipsis
capitulis faciant.” Pertz, iii. 115, § 19.
-----
The second great meeting comprised only the seniores and the king’s
immediate councillors[477]. It appears to have been concerned with
questions of revenue as well as general policy. But its main object was
to prepare the business and anticipate the necessities of the coming
year. It was a deliberative assembly[478] in which questions afterwards
to be submitted to the general meeting were discussed and agreed upon.
The members of this council were bound to secrecy. When the public
business had been concluded, they formed a court of justice and of
appeal, for the settlement of litigation in cases which transcended the
powers or skill of the ordinary tribunals[479].
-----
Footnote 477:
Hincmar, c. 30.
Footnote 478:
These persons were in the strictest sense of the word προβούλοι, and
their acts προβουλεύματα. No doubt their body comprised the principal
officers engaged in the administration of the State.
Footnote 479:
Hincmar, c. 33.
-----
The general councils were held, in fine weather, in the open air, or, if
occasion required, in houses devoted to the purpose. The ecclesiastics
and the magnates, for so we may call them, sat apart from the multitude;
but even they had separate chambers, in which the clergy could
deliberate upon matters purely ecclesiastical, the magnates upon matters
purely civil: but when the object of their enquiry was of a mixed
character, they were called together[480]. Before these chambers the
questions were brought which had been prepared at the preceding meeting,
or arose from altered circumstances: the opinion of the members was
taken upon them, and when agreed to they were presented to the king, who
agreed or disagreed in turn, as the case might be. While the new laws or
administrative regulations were under discussion, the king, unless
especially invited to be present at the deliberations, occupied himself
in mixing with the remaining multitude, receiving their presents,
welcoming their leaders, conversing with the new comers, sympathizing
with the old, congratulating the young, and in similar employments, both
in spirituals and temporals, says Hincmar[481]. When the prepared
business had been disposed of, the king propounded detailed
interrogatories to the chambers, respecting the state of the country in
the different districts, or what was known of the intentions and actions
of neighbouring countries; and these having been answered or reserved
for consideration, the assembly broke up. When any new chapters, hence
called Capitula, had been added to the ancient law or folkright, special
messengers (_missi_) were dispatched into the provinces to obtain the
assent and signatures of the free men, and the chapters thus ratified
became thenceforth the law of the land. Is it unreasonable to suppose
that the proposals of the princes were also presented to the assembled
freemen, the _reliqua multitudo_, in arms upon the spot, and that in the
old German fashion they carried them by acclamation?
-----
Footnote 480:
“Sed nec illud praetermittendum, quomodo, si tempus serenum erat,
extra, sin autem intra, diversa loca distincta erant; ubi et hi
abundanter segregati semotim, et caetera multitudo separatim residere
potuissent, prius tamen caeterae inferiores personae interesse minime
potuissent. Quae utraque seniorum susceptacula sic in duobus divisa
erant, ut primo omnes episcopi, abbates, vel huiusmodi
honorificentiores clerici, absque ulla laicorum commixtione
congregarentur; similiter comites vel huiusmodi principes sibimet
honorificabiliter a caetera multitudine primo mane segregarentur,
quousque tempus, sive praesente sive absente rege, occurrerent. Et
tunc praedicti Seniores more solito, clerici ad suam, laici vero ad
suam constitutam curiam, subselliis similiter honorificabiliter
praeparatis, convocarentur. Qui cum separati a caeteris essent, in
eorum manebat potestate, quando simul, vel quando separati residerent,
prout eos tractandae causae qualitas docebat, sive de spiritalibus,
sive de saecularibus, seu etiam commixtis. Similiter, si propter
aliquam vescendi [? noscendi] vel investigandi causam quemcunque
vocare voluissent, et [? an] re comperta discederet, in eorum
voluntate manebat.” Hincmar, c. 35.
Footnote 481:
“Interim vero, quo haec in regis absentia agebantur, ipse princeps
reliquae multitudini in suscipiendis muneribus, salutandis proceribus,
confabulando rarius visis, compatiendo senioribus, congaudendo
iunioribus, et caetera his similia tam in spiritalibus, quamque et in
saecularibus occupatus erat. Ita tamen, quotienscunque segregatorum
voluntas esset, ad eos veniret,” etc. Hincmar, c. 35.
-----
While the district whose members attend the folkmoot is still small,
there is no great inconvenience in this method of proceeding. In the
empire of Charlemagne attendance upon the Campus Madius, whether as
soldier or councillor must have been a heavy burthen. Nor can we
conceive it to have been otherwise here, as soon as counties became
consolidated into kingdoms, and kingdoms into an empire. In a country
overrun with forests, intersected with deep streams or extensive
marshes, and but ill provided with the means of internal communication,
suit and service even at the county-court must have been a hardship to
the cultivator; a duty performed not without danger, and often
vexatiously interfering with agricultural processes on which the hopes
of the year might depend. Much more keenly would this have been felt had
every freeman been called upon to attend beyond the limits of his own
shire, in places distant from, and totally unknown to him: how for
example would a cultivator from Essex have been likely to look upon a
journey into Gloucestershire[482] at the severe season of
Christmas[483], or the, to him, important farming period of Easter? What
moreover could he care for general laws affecting many districts beside
the one in which he lived, or for regulations applying to fractions of
society in which he had no interest? for the Saxon cultivator was not
then a politician; nor were general rules which embraced a whole kingdom
of the same moment to him, as those which might concern the little
locality in which his alod lay. Or what benefit could be expected from
his attendance at deliberations which concerned parts of the country
with whose mode of life and necessities he was totally unacquainted?
Lastly, what evil must not have resulted to the republic by the
withdrawal of whole populations from their usual places of employment,
and the congregating them in a distant and unknown locality? If we
consider these facts, we shall find little difficulty in imagining that
any scheme which relieved him from this burthen and threw it upon
stronger shoulders, would be a welcome one, and the foundation of a
representative system seems laid _à priori_, and in the nature of things
itself. To the rich and powerful neighbour whose absence from his farms
was immaterial, while his bailiffs remained on the spot to superintend
their cultivation; to the scírgeréfa, the ealdorman, the royal reeve, or
royal thane, familiar with the public business, and having influence and
interest with the king; to the bishop or abbot, distinguished for his
wisdom as well as his station; to any or all of these he would be ready
to commit the defence of his small, private interests, satisfied to be
virtually represented if he were not compelled to leave the business and
the enjoyments of his daily life[484].
Footnote 482:
Easter and Christmas were usual times for the meetings of the Witan,
and during the Mercian period, Cloveshoo was frequently the place
where they assembled. Doubts have been lavished, upon the situation of
this place, which I do not share. In 804 Æðelríc the son of Æðelmund
was impleaded respecting lands in Gloucestershire, and stood to right
at Cloveshoo. Now it is clear that trial to those lands could properly
be made only in the hundred or shire where they lay; and as the
brotherhood of Berkeley were claimants, and the whole business
appertained to _Westminster_, I am disposed to seek Cloveshoo
somewhere in the hundred of that name in the county of Gloucester, and
therefore not far from Deerhurst, Tewksbury and Bishop’s Cleeve; not
at all improbably in Tewksbury itself, which may have been called
Clofeshoas, before the erection of a noble abbey at a later period
gave it the name it now bears. Cod. Dipl. No. 186.
Footnote 483:
These were usual periods for holding the gemót. “Actum Wintoniae in
publica curia Natalis Christi, in die festivitatis sancti Sylvestri,”
etc. Cod. Dipl. No. 815. The old folcmót probably met three times in
the year at the unbidden Ðing or _placitum_: so did the followers of
the first Norman kings at least, and it is remarkable enough that the
barons at Oxford should have returned to this arrangement, 42 Hen.
III. anno 1258. “Fait a remembrer qe lez xxiiii ount ordeignez qe
trois parlementz seront par an, le primere az octaues de seint Michel,
le seconde lendimayn de le chaundelour, le tierce le primer iour de
Juyn ceste asauoir trois semayns deuant le seint Johan; et a ces troiz
parlementz vendront lez conseillours le roi eluz tut ne seyent il pas
mandez pur vere lestat du roialme, et pur treter les communes
busoignes du reaume et del roi ensement et autrefoitz ensembleront
quant mester sera par maundement le roi.” Prov. Oxon., Brit. Mus.,
Cotton MS., Tiberius B. iv. folio 213. According to the later custom
Parliaments were to be, at least, annual, and were frequently admitted
so to be by law, until the Tudor times. See 5 Ed. II. an. 1311. “Nous
ordenoms qe le Roy tiegne Parlement vne foiz par an ou deux fois se
mestre soit, et ceo en lieu convenable,” etc.: which ordinance of the
Lords was passed into an act of Parliament 4 Ed. III. cap. 14. Some
years later the Commons petitioned the same king, that for redress of
grievances and other important causes, “soit Parlement tenuz au meinz
chescun an en la seson que plerra au Roy.” Rot. Parl. 36 Ed. III. n.
25. To which the king answered that the ancient statute thereupon
should be held. This petition the Commons found it necessary to repeat
fourteen years later, “qe chescun an soit tenuz un Parlement,” etc.:
to which the answer was, “Endroit du Parlement chescun an, il y aent
estatuz et ordenances faitz les queux soient duement gardez et tenuz.”
Rot. Parl. 50 Ed. III. n. 186: and the same thing took place at the
accession of Richard the Second. Rot. Parl. 1 Ric. II. n. 95. 2 Ric.
II. n. 2. Triennial parliaments were, I believe, first agreed to by
Charles the First.
Footnote 484:
The establishment of the Scabini or Schöffen in the Frankish empire
was intended to relieve the freemen from the inconvenience of
attending gemóts, which the counts converted into an engine of
extortion and oppression.
-----
On the other hand, to whom could the king look with greater security,
than to the men whose sympathies were all those of the ruling caste;
many of whom were his own kinsmen by blood or marriage, more of whom
were his own officers; men, too, accustomed to business, and practically
acquainted with the wants of their several localities? Or how, when the
customs and condition of widely different social aggregations were to be
considered and reconciled, could he do better than advise with those who
were most able to point out and meet the difficulties of the task? Thus,
it appears to me, by a natural process did the folkmót or meeting of the
nation become converted into a witena gemót or meeting of councillors.
Nor let it be imagined by this that I mean the king’s councillors only:
by no means; they were the witan or councillors of the nation, members
of the great council or inquest, who sought what was for the general
good, certainly not men who accidentally formed part of what we in later
days call the king’s council, and who might have been more or less the
creatures of his will: they were leódwitan, þeódwitan, general, popular,
universal councillors: only when they chanced to be met for the purpose
of advising him could they bear the title of the cyninges þeahteras or
cyninges witan. Then no doubt the Leódwitan became ðæs cyninges witan
(_the_ king’s, not king’s, councillors) because without their assistance
he could not have enacted, nor without their assistance executed, his
laws. Let it be borne in mind throughout that the king was only the head
of an aristocracy which acted with him, and by whose support he reigned;
that this aristocracy again was only a higher order of the freemen, to
whose class it belonged, and with many of whose interests it was
identified; that the clergy, learned, active and powerful, were there to
mediate between the rulers and the ruled; and I think we shall conclude
that the system which I have faintly sketched was not incapable of
securing to a great degree the well-being of a state in such an early
stage of development as the Saxon Commonwealth. At what exact period the
change I have attempted to describe was effected, is neither very easy
to determine nor very material. It was probably very gradual, and very
partial; indeed it may never have been formally recognised, for here and
there we find evident traces of the people’s being present at, and
ratifying the decisions of the witan. Much more important is it to
consider certain details respecting the composition, powers and
functions of the witena gemót as we find it in periods of ascertained
history. The documents contained in the Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici
enable us to do this in some degree. In that collection there are
several grants which are distinctly stated to have been made in such
meetings of the witan, by and with their consent, and the signatures to
which may be assumed to be those of members present on the occasion.
Among these we find the king, frequently the æðelings or princes of the
blood, generally the archbishops and all or some of the bishops and
abbots; all or some of the dukes or ealdormen; sometimes priests and
deacons; and generally a large attendance of milites, ministri or
thanes, many of whom must unhesitatingly be asserted to be royal
officers, geréfan and the like, in the shires[485]. From one document it
is evident that the sheriffs of all the counties were present[486]: and
in a few cases we meet with names accompanied by no special designation.
Now it appears that a body so constituted would have been very competent
to advise for the general good; and I do not scruple to express my
opinion that under such a system the interests of the country were very
fairly represented; especially as there were then no parliamentary
struggles to make the duration of ministries dependent upon the counting
up of single votes; and contests for the representation of counties or
boroughs would have been as much without an object in those days, as
they are important in our own; above all, since there was then no
systematic voting of money for the public service.
-----
Footnote 485:
It has always been a question of deep interest in this country, what
persons were entitled to attend the Gemót: and in truth very important
constitutional doctrines depend upon the answer we give to it. The
very first and most essential condition of truth appears to me, that
we firmly close our eyes to everything derived from the custom of
Parliaments, under the Norman, the Angevine or the English kings: the
practice of a nation governed by the principles of Feudal law, is
totally irreconcileable with the old system of personal relations
which existed under the earlier Teutonic law. The next most important
thing is, that we use no words but such as the Saxons themselves used:
the moment we begin to talk of Tenants in capite, Vavassors, Vassals,
and so forth, we introduce terms which may involve a _petitio
principii_, and must lead to associations of ideas tending to an
erroneous conclusion. One of these fallacies appears to me to lie in
the assertion that a landed qualification was required for a member of
the Witena gemót. One of the most brilliant, if not the most accurate,
commentators on our constitutional history, Sir F. Palgrave, has
raised this question. According to his view no one could be a member
of that singular body which he supposes the Anglosaxon Parliament to
have been, unless he had forty híds of land, four thousand acres at
least according to the popular doctrine. But this whole supposition
rests upon a series of fine-drawn conclusions, in my opinion, without
sound foundation, and totally inconsistent with every feeling and
habit of Saxon society. The monkish writer of the history of Ely—a
very late and generally ill-informed authority—says that a lady would
not marry some suitor of hers, because not having forty híds he could
not be counted among the Proceres; and this is the whole basis of this
parliamentary theory,—_proceres_ being assumed, without the slightest
reason, to mean members of the witena gemót,—and the witena gemót to
be some royal council, some Curia Regis, and not at all the kind of
body described in this chapter. I confess I cannot realize to myself
the notion of an Anglosaxon woman nourishing the ambition of seeing
her husband a member of Parliament. The passage no doubt implies that
a certain amount of land was necessary to entitle a man to be classed
in a certain high rank in society: and this becomes probable enough as
we find a landed qualification partially insisted on with regard to
the ceorl who aspired to be ranked as a thane. But this is a negative
condition altogether: it is intended to repress the pretensions of
those who, in spite of their ceorlish birth, assumed the weapons and
would, if possible, have assumed the rights of thanes. In the Saxon
custumal, called “Ranks,” it is said:—“And if a thane throve so that
he became an eorl, he was thenceforth worthy of eorl-right.” Thorpe,
i. 192. On this the learned editor of the Ancient Laws and Institutes
observes:—“It is to this law that the historian of Ely seems to allude
in the following passage, and not to any qualification for a seat in
the witena gemót, as has been so frequently asserted. ‘Habuit (sc.
Wulfricus abbas) enim fratrem Gudmundum vocabulo, cui filiam
praepotentis viri in matrimonium coniungi paraverat, sed quoniam ille
quadraginta hidarum terrae dominium minime obtineret, licet nobilis
esset [that is, a thane] inter proceres tunc nominari non potuit, eum
puella repudiavit.’ Gale, ii. c. 40. If we refer to the Dooms of Cnut,
c. 69, we shall see that the heriots of an eorl and of a lesser thane
were in the proportion of from one to eight,—a rule which may have
been supposed to have arisen from a somewhat similar relation between
the quantities of their respective estates; and as the possession of
five hides conferred upon a ceorl the rights of a thane, the
possession of forty (5 × 8) in all probability raised a thane to the
dignity of an eorl.” This opinion is only a confirmation of that which
I had myself formed on similar grounds long before Mr. Thorpe’s work
was published: and it was apparently so understood by Phillips before
either of us wrote. See Angels. Recht. p. 114, note 317, Göttingen,
1825.
Footnote 486:
Leg. Æðelst. v. § 10.
-----
Among the charters from which we derive our information as to the
constituent members of the gemót, one or two appear to be signed by the
queen and other ladies, always I believe, ecclesiastics of rank and
wealth. I do not however, on this account, argue that such women formed
parts of the regular body. In many cases it is clear that when a grant
had been made by the king and his witan, the document was drawn up, and
offered for attestation to the principal persons present or easily
accessible. When the queen had accompanied her consort to the place
where the gemót was held, or when, as was usual, the gemót attended the
king at one of his own residences to assist in the hospitalities of
Christmas and Easter, it was natural that the first lady of the land
should be asked to witness grants of land, and other favours conferred
upon individuals: it was a compliment to herself, not less than to him
whom she honoured with her signature. But I know no instance where the
record of any solemn public business is so corroborated; nor does it
follow that the document which was drawn up in accordance with the
resolution of a gemót should necessarily be signed in the gemót itself.
It may have been executed subsequently at the king’s festal board, and
in presence of the members of his court and household. The case of
abbesses, if not disposed of by the arguments just advanced, must be
understood of gemóts in which the interests of the monastic bodies were
concerned. Here it is possible that ladies of high rank at the head of
nunneries may have attended to watch the proceedings of the synod and
attest its acts. Again, where the gemót acted as a high court of
justice, which often was the case, a lady who had been party to a cause
might naturally be called upon to sign the record of the judgment. The
instances however in which the signatures of women occur are very rare.
Although the members of the gemót are called in Saxon generally by the
name of _witan_[487], they are decorated with very various titles in the
Latin documents. Among these the most common are Maiores natu,
Sapientes, Principes, Senatores, Primates, Optimates, Magnates, and in
three or four charters they are designated Procuratores patriae[488],
which last title however seems confined to the thanes, geréfan or other
members below the rank of an ealdorman. In the prologue to the laws of
Wihtrǽd they are called ða eádigan, for which I know no better
translation than the Spanish _Ricos hombres_, where the wealth of the
parties is certainly not the leading idea. But whatever be their titles
they are unquestionably looked upon as representing the whole body of
the people, and consequently the national will: and indeed in one
charter of Æðelstán, an. 931, the act is said to have been confirmed
“tota plebis generalitate ovante,” with the approbation of all the
people[489]; and the act of a similar meeting at Winchester in 934,
which was attended by the king, four Welsh princes, two archbishops,
seventeen bishops, four abbots, twelve dukes, and fifty-two thanes,
making a total of ninety-two persons, is described to have been executed
“tota populi generalitate[490].” On one occasion a gemót is mentioned of
which the members are called the king’s heáhwitan, or high
councillors[491]: it is impossible to say whether this is intended to
mark a difference in their rank. If it were, it might be referred to the
analogy of the autumnal meetings in Charlemagne’s constitution, but
nothing has yet been met with to confirm this hypothesis, which, in
itself, is not very probable.
-----
Footnote 487:
I write _wita_ not _wíta_. The vowel is short, and the noun is formed
either upon the plural participle of _wítan_ to know, or upon a noun
_wit_, _intellectus_, previously so formed. The quantity of the vowel
is ascertained by the not uncommon spelling weota, where eo = ĭ (see
Cod. Dipl. No. 1073), and the occurrence in composition of the form
_uta_, which is consonant to the analogy of wudu, wuduwe, wuce for
wĭdu, wĭduwe, wĭce, but excludes the possibility of a long í.
Footnote 488:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 361, 1102, 1105, 1107, 1108.
Footnote 489:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1103.
Footnote 490:
Cod. Dipl. No. 364.
Footnote 491:
Chron. Sax. an. 1009.
-----
The largest amount of signatures which I have yet observed is 106, but
numbers varying from 90 to 100 are not uncommon, especially after the
consolidation of the monarchy[492]. In earlier times, and smaller
kingdoms, the numbers must have been much less: the gemót which decided
upon the reception of Christianity in Northumberland was held in a
room[493], and Dunstan met the witan of England in the upper floor of a
house at Calne[494]. Other meetings, which were rather in the nature of
conventions, and were held in the presence of armies, may have been much
more numerous and tumultuary,—much more like the ancient armed folkmoot
or the famous day which put an end to the Merwingian dynasty among the
Franks[495].
-----
Footnote 492:
See Cod. Dipl. Nos. 353, 364, 1107. There is one document signed by
121 persons (Cod. Dipl. Nos. 219, 220), but I have some doubt whether
all the signitaries were members of the gemót.
Footnote 493:
Beda, H. E. ii. 13.
Footnote 494:
Chron. Sax. an. 978.
Footnote 495:
Such perhaps was the gemót which after Eádmund írensída’s death
elected Cnut sole king of England, or that in which Earl Godwine and
his family were outlawed.
-----
That the members of the witena gemót were not elected, in any sense
which we now attach to the word, I hold to be indisputable: elective
witan ceased together with elective scírgeréfan or ealdormen[496]. But
in a system so elastic as the Saxon, it is conceivable that an
ealdorman, bishop or other great wita may have occasionally carried with
him to the gemót some friend or dependent whose wisdom he thought might
aid in the discussions, or whom the opinion of the neighbourhood
designated as a person well calculated to advise for the general good,—a
slight trace, but still a trace, of the ancient popular right to be
present at the settlement of public business. To this I attribute the
frequent appearance of priests and deacons, who probably attended in the
suite of prelates, and would be useful assessors when clerical business
was brought before the council. Generally, I imagine, the witan after
having once been called by writ or summons, met like our own peers, as a
matter of course, whenever a parliament was proclaimed; and that they
were summoned by the king, either _pro hac vice_, or generally, can be
clearly shown. Æðelstán, speaking of the gemóts at Greatanleá, Exeter,
Feversham and Thundersfield, says that the consultations were made,
before the archbishop, the bishops, and the witan present, _whom the
king himself had named_: “Swá Æðelstán cyng hit gerǽed hæfð, ⁊ his
witan, ǽrest æt Greátanleá, ⁊ eft æt Exanceastre, ⁊ syððám æt Fæfreshám,
⁊ feorðan síðe æt Ðunresfelda, beforan ðám arcebiscope, ⁊ eallum ðám
bisceopan, ⁊ his witum, ðe se cyng silf namode, ðe ðǽron wǽron[497].”
How these appointments took place is not very material, but as the witan
were collected from various parts of England, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that it was by the easy means of a writ and token, _gewrit and
insigel_. The meeting was proclaimed some time in advance, at some one
of the royal residences[498].
-----
Footnote 496:
This is not altogether devoid of strangeness, because we know that
among the Oldsaxons of the continent there was a regulated system of
elective representatives, including even those of the servile class.
Hucbald, in his life of Lebuuini, tells us: “In Saxonum gente priscis
temporibus neque summi coelestisque regis inerat notitia, ut digna
cultui eius exhiberetur reverentia, neque terreni alicuius regis
dignitas et honorificentia, cuius regeretur providentia, corrigeretur
censura, defenderetur industria: sed erat gens ipsa, sicuti nunc usque
consistit, ordine tripartito divisa. Sunt denique ibi, qui illorum
lingua _edilingi_, sunt qui _frilingi_, sunt qui _lassi_ dicuntur,
quod in latina sonat lingua, nobiles, ingenuiles atque serviles. Pro
suo vero libitu, consilio quoque, ut videbatur, prudenti, singulis
pagis principes praeerant singuli. Statuto quoque tempore anni semel
ex singulis pagis, atque ab eisdem ordinibus tripartitis, singillatim
viri duodecim electi, et in unum collecti, in media Saxonia secus
flumen Wiseram et locum Marklo nuncupatum, exercebant generale
concilium, tractantes, sancientes et propalantes communis commoda
utilitatis, iuxta placitum a se statutae legis. Sed etsi forte belli
terreret exitium, si pacis arrideret gaudium, consulebant ad haec quid
sibi foret agendum.” Pertz, Monum. ii. 361, 362.
Footnote 497:
Æðelst. v. § 10. Thorpe, i. 240.
Footnote 498:
“Ðonne beád mon ealle witan tó cynge, and man sceólde ðonne rǽdan, hú
man ðisne eard werian sceólde.” Chron. an. 1010. _Beódan_ is to
_proclaim_.
See also Chron. Sax. 1048. Hist. Eliens. 1, 10, etc.
-----
The proper Saxon name for these assemblies was witena gemót[499],
literally the meeting of the witan; but we also find, micel gemót, the
great meeting; sinoðlíc gemót, the synodal meeting; seonoð, the synod.
The Latin names are concilium, conventus, synodus, synodale
conciliabulum, and the like. Although synodus and seonoð might more
properly be confined to ecclesiastical conventions, the Saxons do not
appear to have made any distinction; probably because ecclesiastical and
secular regulations were made by the same body, and at the same time.
But it is very probable that the Frankish system of separate houses for
the clergy and laity prevailed here also, and that merely ecclesiastical
affairs were decided by the king and clergy alone. There are some acts
in which the signatures are those of clergymen only, others in which the
clerical signatures are followed and, as it were, confirmed by those of
the laity; and in one remarkable case of this kind, the king signs at
the head of each list, as if he had in fact affixed his mark
successively in the two houses, as president of each[500].
Footnote 499:
“And se cyng hæfde ðǽr on morgen witena gemót, ⁊ cwæð hine útlage.”
Chron. Sax. an. 1052. “And wæs ðá witena gemót.” Ib. an. 1052. “Ða
hæfde Eádwerd cyning witena gemót on Lundene.” Ib. an. 1050.
Footnote 500:
Cod. Dipl. No. 116. It is probable that even in strictly
ecclesiastical synods, the king had a presidency at least, as head of
the church in his dominions. In Willibald’s life of Boniface we are
told:—“Regnante Ini, Westsaxonum rege, subitanea quaedam incubuerat,
nova quadam seditione exorta, necessitas, et statim synodale a
primatibus aecclesiarum cum consilio praedicti regis servorum Dei
factum est concilium; moxque omnibus in unum convenientibus,
saluberrima de hac recenti dissentione consilii quaestio inter
sacerdotales aecclesiastici ordinis gradus sapienter exoritur, et
prudentiori inito consultu, fideles in Domino legatos ad
archiepiscopum Cantuariae civitatis, nomine Berchtwaldum, destinandos
deputarunt, ne eorum praesumptione aut temeritati adscriberetur, si
quid sine tanti pontificis agerent consilio. Cumque omnis senatus et
universus clericorum ordo, tam providenti peracta conlatione,
consentirent, confestim rex cunctos Christi famulos adlocutus est, ut
cui huius praefatae legationis nuntium inponerent, sciscitarent,” etc.
Pertz, ii. 338.
A more important question for us is, what were the powers of the witena
gemót? It must be answered by examples in detail.
1. _First, and in general, they possessed a consultative voice, and
right to consider every public act, which could be authorised by the
king._ This has been attempted to be denied, but without sufficient
reason. Runde, who is one of the upholders of the erroneous doctrine on
this subject, appeals to the introduction of Christianity into Kent,
which he perhaps justly declares to have been made without the assent of
the witan[501]. But it does not at all follow that the first reception
of Augustine by Æðelberht is to be considered a public act, or that it
had any immediate consequences for the public law. Nor is it certain
that at a later period, a meeting of the witan may not have ratified the
private proceeding of the king. Æðelberht, who had some experience of
Christianity from the doctrine and practice of his Frankish consort
Beorhte, may have chosen to trust to the silent, gradual working of the
missionaries, without courting the opposition of a heathen witena gemót,
till assured of success: his court were already accustomed to the sight
of a Christian bishop and clergy in Beorhte’s suite, and Augustine with
his company might easily pass for a mere addition to that department of
the royal household. Indeed Augustine himself does not appear to have
been at all ambitious of martyrdom, and probably preferred trying the
chances of a gradual progress to a stormy and perhaps fatal collision
with a body of barbarians, led by a pagan and rival priesthood. The
words of Beda therefore can prove nothing in the matter, except indeed
what is most important for us, viz. that Æðelberht at first refused to
interfere as king, that is, would not make a public question of
Augustine’s mission[502]. But Runde seems to have forgotten that
Æðelberht’s laws, which must be dated between 596 and 605, do most
emphatically recognise Christianity and the Christian priesthood; and as
Beda declares him to have enacted these laws “cum consilio
sapientum[503],” we shall hardly be saying too much if we affirm that
the introduction of Christianity was at least ratified by a solemn act
of the witan. Runde’s further remarks upon the conversion of
Northumberland seem to prove that he really never read through the
passages he himself cites, so completely do they refute his own
arguments[504].
-----
Footnote 501:
Runde, Abhandlung vom Ursprung der Reichsstandschaft der Bischöfe und
Aebte. Gött. 1775, p. 35, etc.
Footnote 502:
Hist. Eccl. i. 26.
Footnote 503:
Ibid. ii. 5.
Footnote 504:
See Phillips, Geschichte des Angelsächsischen Rechts. Gött. 1825, p.
71.
-----
2. _The witan deliberated upon the making of new laws which were to be
added to the existing folcriht[505], and which were then promulgated by
their own and the king’s authority[506]._ Beda, in a passage just cited,
says of Æðelberht:—“Amongst other benefits which consulting, he bestowed
upon his nation, he gave her also, with the advice of his witan, decrees
of judgments, after the example of the Romans: which, written in the
English tongue, are yet possessed and observed by her[507].” And these
laws were enacted by their authority, jointly with the king’s. The
Prologue to the law of Wihtrǽd declares:—“These are the dooms of
Wihtrǽd, king of the men of Kent. In the reign of the most clement king
of the men of Kent, Wihtrǽd, in the fifth year of his reign, the ninth
indiction[508]. the sixth day of the month Rugern, in the place which is
called Berghamstead[509], where was assembled a deliberative convention
of the great men[510]; there was Brihtwald the high-bishop[511] of
Britain, and the aforenamed king; also the bishop of Rochester; the same
was called Gybmund, he was present; and every degree of the church in
that tribe, spake in unison with the obedient people[512]. There the
great men decreed, with the suffrages of all, these dooms, and added
them to the lawful customs of the men of Kent, as hereafter is said and
declared[513].”
Footnote 505:
Hloðhære and Eádríc, kings of the men of Kent, _augmented_ the laws
which their forefathers had made before them, by these dooms. Prol. to
Leg. Hloð. et Ead. Thorpe, i. 26. See also the Prologue to Wihtrǽd’s
laws in the text.
Footnote 506:
This is the case throughout the Teutonic legislation, where there is a
king at all. “Theodoricus rex Francorum, cum esset Cathalaunis, elegit
viros sapientes, qui in regno suo legibus antiquis eruditi erant: ipso
autem dictante, iussit conscribere legem Francorum, Alemannorum et
Baiuvariorum,” etc. Eichhorn, i. 273. “Incipit Lex Alamannorum, quae
temporibus Hlodharii regis (an. 613-628) una cum principibus suis, id
sunt xxxiii episcopis, et xxxiv ducibus, et lxii comitibus, vel
caetero populo constituta est.” Eichhorn, i. 274, note a. “In Christi
nomine, incipit Lex Alamannorum, qui temporibus Lanfrido filio
Godofrido renovata est. Convenit enim maioribus natu populo
allamannorum una cum duci eorum lanfrido vel citerorum populo adunato
ut si quilibet,” etc. About beginning of eighth century. Eichhorn. i.
274, note c. The Breviarium of Alaric the Visigoth (an. 506) was
compiled by Roman jurists, but submitted to an assembly of prelates
and noble laymen. In the authoritative rescript which accompanies this
work, it is said the object was, “Ut omnis legum Romanarum, et antiqui
iuris obscuritas, adhibitis sacerdotibus ac nobilibus viris, in lucem
intelligentiae melioris deducta resplendeat.... Quibus omnibus
enucleatis atque in unum librum prudentium electione collectis, haec
quae excerpta sunt, vel clariori interpretatione composita,
venerabilium Episcoporum, vel electorum provincialium nostrorum
roboravit adsensus.” Eichhorn, i. 280, note bb. Gundobald the
Burgundian, whose laws must have been promulgated before 515, says
that he was aided by the advice of his optimates. Again he says,
“Primum habito consilio comitum, procerumque nostrorum,” etc.
Eichhorn, i. 265, note c.
Footnote 507:
Hist. Eccl. ii. 5. He cites a passage which identifies these dooms
with those which yet go under Æðelberht’s name.
Footnote 508:
A.D. 696. The month is unknown, but probably in autumn.
Footnote 509:
Now Berstead, near Maidstone, in Kent, certainly not Berkhampstead in
Hertfordshire, as Clutterbuck affirms in his history of that county.
Footnote 510:
“Eádigra geþeahtendlíc ymcyme.” See Thorpe, i. 36, note c.
Footnote 511:
Archbishop of Canterbury.
Footnote 512:
The people subject to their charge. Were the people, that is, the
freemen, present at this gemót in their divisions as parishes or
ecclesiastical districts?
Footnote 513:
Thorpe, i. 36.
-----
The prologue to the laws of Ini establishes the same fact for Wessex; he
says,—“Ini, by the grace of God, king of the Westsaxons, with the advice
and by the teaching of Cénred, my father, and of Hedde my bishop, and
Ercenwold my bishop, with all my ealdormen, and the most eminent witan
of my people, and also with a great assemblage of God’s servants[514],
have been considering respecting our soul’s heal, and the stability of
our realm; so that right law, and right royal judgments might be settled
and confirmed among our people; so that none of our ealdormen, nor of
those who are subject unto us, should ever hereafter turn aside these
our dooms[515].”
-----
Footnote 514:
The clergy especially.
Footnote 515:
Thorpe, i. 102.
-----
And this is confirmed in more detail by Ælfred. This prince, after
giving some extracts from the Levitical legislation, and deducing their
authority through the Apostolical teaching, proceeds to engraft upon the
latter the peculiar principle of bót or compensation which is the
characteristic of Teutonic legislation[516]. He says,—“After this it
happened that many nations received the faith of Christ; and then were
many synods assembled throughout all the earth, and among the English
race also, after they had received the faith of Christ, of holy bishops,
and also of their exalted witan. They then ordained, out of that mercy
which Christ had taught, that secular lords, _with their leave_, might
without sin take for almost every misdeed—for the first offence—the bót
in money which they then ordained; except in cases of treason against a
lord, to which they dared not to assign any mercy; because Almighty God
adjudged none to them that despised him, nor did Christ, the son of God,
adjudge any to him that sold him unto death: and he commanded that a
lord should be loved like oneself[517]. They then, in many synods,
decreed a bót for many human misdeeds; and in many synod-books they
wrote, here one doom, there another.
-----
Footnote 516:
Ælfred makes a marked exception in the case of treason, and repeats it
in strong terms in § 4 of his laws, “be hláford syrwe.” These despotic
tendencies of a great prince, nurtured probably by his exaggerated
love for foreign literature, may account to us for the state of utter
destitution in which his people at one time left him. His strong
personality, and active character, coupled with the almost miraculous,
at any rate most improbable, event, of his ascending the throne of
Wessex, may have betrayed him in his youth into steps which his
countrymen looked upon as dangerous to their liberties. Nothing can
show Ælfred’s antinational and un-Teutonic feeling more than his
attributing the system of bóts or compensations to the influence of
Christianity.
Footnote 517:
This is Mr. Thorpe’s version, i. 59. But the words may be as strictly
construed, “should be loved like _himself_,” viz. God.
-----
“Then I, Ælfred the king, gathered these together, and commanded many of
those which our forefathers held, and which seemed good to me, to be
written down; and many which did not seem good to me, I rejected by the
counsel of my witan, and commanded them in other wise to be holden; but
much of my own I did not venture to set down in writing, for I knew not
how much of it might please our successors. But what I met with, either
of the time of Ini my kinsman, or of Offa, king of the Mercians, or
Æðelberht who first of the English race received baptism, the best I
have here collected, and the rest rejected. I then, Ælfred king of the
Westsaxons, showed these to all my witan, and they then said, that it
liked them well so to hold them.”
The laws of Eádweard like those of Hloðhere and Eádríc have no proem:
next in order of time are those of Æðelstán. The council of Greatley
opens with an ordinance which the king says was framed by the advice of
Wulfhelm, archbishop of Canterbury and his other bishops: no other witan
are mentioned. Now it is remarkable enough that this ordinance refers
exclusively to tithes, and other ecclesiastical dues, and works of
charity. But the secular ordinances which follow conclude with these
words: “All this was established in the great synod at Greátanleá; in
which was archbishop Wulfhelm, with all the noblemen and witan whom
Æðelstán the king [commanded to] gather together[518].”
-----
Footnote 518:
Thorpe, i. 214.
-----
The witan at Exeter, under the same king, are much more explicit as to
their powers: in the preamble to their laws, they say: “These are the
dooms which the witan at Exeter decreed, with the counsel of Æðelstán
the king, and again at Feversham, and a third time at Thundersfield,
where the whole was settled and confirmed together[519].”
-----
Footnote 519:
Ibid. i. 207.
-----
The concurrence of these witan is continually appealed to in the Saxon
laws which follow[520], and which are supplementary to the three gemóts
mentioned. But in a chapter (§ 7) concerning ordeals, the regulation is
said to be by command of God, the archbishop and all the bishops, and
the other witan are not mentioned; probably because the administration
of the ordeal was a special, ecclesiastical function. Again in the
Judicia Civitatis Londoniae the joint legislative authority of the king
and the witan is repeatedly alluded to[521].
-----
Footnote 520:
Æðelst. iv. Thorpe, i. 220, 224.
Footnote 521:
Æðelst. v. § 10, 11, 12. Thorpe, i. 238, 240.
-----
Eádmund commences his laws by stating that he had assembled a great
_synod_ in London at Easter, at which the two archbishops, Oda and
Wulfstan, were present, together with many bishops and persons of
ecclesiastical as well as secular condition[522]. And having thus given
the authority by which he acted, he proceeds to the details of his law,
which he again declares to have been promulgated, after deliberation
with the council of his witan, ecclesiastical and lay[523]. The council
of Culinton, held under the same prince, commences thus: “This is the
decree which Eádmund the king and his bishops, with his witan,
established at Culinton, concerning the maintenance of peace, and taking
the oaths of fidelity.”
-----
Footnote 522:
Thorpe, i. 244.
Footnote 523:
Ibid. i. 246.
-----
Next comes Eádgár, whose law commences in these words: “This is the
ordinance which Eádgár the king, with the counsel of his witan,
ordained, to the praise of God, his own honour, and the benefit of all
his people[524].”
-----
Footnote 524:
Ibid. i. 262; see also pp. 270, 272, 276.
-----
In like manner, Æðelred informs us that his law was ordained, “for the
better maintenance of the public peace, by himself and his witan at
Woodstock, in the land of the Mercians, according to the laws of the
Angles[525].” In precisely similar terms he speaks of new laws made by
himself and his witan at Wantage[526]. In a collection of laws passed in
1008, under the same prince, we find the following preamble[527]: “This
is the ordinance which the king of the English, with his witan, both
clerical and lay, have chosen[528] and advised;” and every one of the
first five paragraphs commences with the same solemn words, viz. “This
is the ordinance of our lord, and of his witan,” etc.
-----
Footnote 525:
Ibid. i. 280.
Footnote 526:
Ibid. i. 292.
Footnote 527:
Ibid. i. 304.
Footnote 528:
The word _ceósan_, to elect or choose, is the technical expression in
Teutonic legislation for ordinances which have been deliberated upon.
-----
But far more strongly is this marked in the provisions of the council of
Enham, under the same miserable prince. These are not only entitled,
“ordinances of the witan[529],” but throughout, the king is never
mentioned at all, and many of the chapters commence, “It is the
ordinance of the witan,” etc. If it were not for one or two enactments
referring to the safety of the royal person, and the dignity of the
crown, we might be almost tempted to imagine that the great councillors
of state had met, during Æðelred’s flight from England, and passed these
laws upon their own authority, without the king. The laws of 1014
commence again with the words so often repeated in this chapter[530],
and such also usher in the very elaborate collection which Cnut and his
witan compiled at Winchester[531].
-----
Footnote 529:
Thorpe, i. 314, 316, 318.
Footnote 530:
Ibid. i. 340, 342, 350.
Footnote 531:
Ibid. i. 358, 376.
-----
Now I think that any impartial person will be satisfied with these
examples, and admit that whoever the witan may have been, they possessed
a legislative authority, at least conjointly with the king. Indeed of
two hypothetical cases, I should be far more inclined to assert that
they possessed it without him, than that he possessed it without them:
at least, I can find no instance of the latter; while I have shown that
there was at least a probability of the former: and even Æðelred himself
says, twice: “Wise in former days were those secular witan[532] who
first added secular laws to the just divine laws, for bishops and
consecrated bodies; and reverenced for love of God holiness and holy
orders, and God’s houses and his servants firmly protected.” Again[533]:
“Wise were those secular witan who to the divine laws of justice added
secular laws for the government of the people; and decreed bót to Christ
and the king, that many should thus, of necessity, be compelled to
right.”
-----
Footnote 532:
Woroldwitan. Æðelr. vii. § 24. Thorpe, i. 334.
Footnote 533:
Æðelr. ix. § 36. Thorpe, i. 348.
-----
Is it not manifest that he, like Ælfred, really felt the legislative
power to reside in the witan, rather than in the king?
3. _The witan had the power of making alliances and treaties of peace,
and of settling their terms._
The defeat of the Danes by Ælfred, in 878, was followed, as is well
known, by the baptism of Guðorm Æðelstán, and the peaceful establishment
of his forces in portions of the ancient kingdoms of Mercia, Essex,
Eastanglia and Northumberland. The terms of this treaty, and the
boundaries of the new states thus constituted were solemnly ratified,
perhaps at Wedmore[534]; the first article of this important public act,
by which Ælfred obtained a considerable accession of territory, runs
thus[535]: “This is the peace that Ælfred the king, and Gyðrum the king,
and the witan of all the English nation, and all the people that are in
Eastanglia, have all ordained and confirmed with oaths, for themselves
and for their descendants, born and unborn, who desire God’s favour or
ours. First, concerning our land-boundaries,” etc. In like manner the
treaty which Eádweard entered into with the same Danes, is said to have
been frequently (“oft and unseldan”) renewed and ratified by the
witan[536].
-----
Footnote 534:
Chron. Sax. an. 878. Asser, _in anno_.
Footnote 535:
Thorpe, i. 152.
Footnote 536:
Thorpe, i. 166.
-----
We still have the terms of the shameful peace which Æðelred bought of
Olafr Tryggvason and his comrades in 994. The document, which was
probably signed at Andover[537], commences with the following words:
“These are the articles of peace and the agreement which Æðelred the
king and all his witan have made with the army which accompanied Anlaf,
and Justin and Guðmund, the son of Stegita[538].”
-----
Footnote 537:
Chron. Sax. an. 994.
Footnote 538:
Thorpe, i. 284.
-----
Many other instances might be cited, as for example the entry in the
Chronicle, anno 947, where it is stated that Eádred made a treaty of
peace with the witan of Northumberland at Taddenes scylf, which was
broken and renewed in the following year: but further evidence upon this
point seems unnecessary[539].
-----
Footnote 539:
See Chron. Sax. an. 1002, 1004, 1006, 1011, 1012. The solemn partition
of the kingdom between Eádmund írensída and Cnut was effected by the
witan, at Olney in Gloucestershire. Chron. Sax. an. 1016.
-----
4. _The witan had the power of electing the king._
The kingly dignity among the Anglosaxons was partly hereditary, partly
elective: that is to say, the kings were usually taken from certain
qualified families, but the witan claimed the right of choosing the
person whom they would have to reign. Their history is filled with
instances of occasions when the sons or direct descendants of the last
king have been set aside in favour of his brother or some other prince
whom the nation believed more capable of ruling: and the very rare
occurrence of discontent on such occasions both proves the authority
which the decision of the witan carried with it, and the great
discretion with which their power was exercised. Only here and there,
when the witan were themselves not unanimous, do we find any traces of
dissensions arising out of a disputed succession[540]. On every fresh
accession, the great compact between the king and the people was
literally, as well as symbolically, renewed, and the technical
expression for ascending the throne is being “gecoren and áhafen tó
cyninge,” elected and raised to be king: where the _áhafen_ refers to
the old Teutonic custom of what we still at election times call chairing
the successful candidate; and the _gecoren_ denotes the positive and
foregone conclusion of a real election. Alfred’s own accession is a
familiar instance of this fact: he was chosen, to the prejudice of his
elder brother’s children; but the nation required a prince capable of
coping with dangers and difficulty, and Asser tells us that he was not
only received as king by the unanimous assent of the people, but that,
had he so pleased, he might have dethroned his brother Æðelred and
reigned in his place[541]. His words are: “In the same year (871) the
aforesaid Ælfred, who hitherto, during the life of his brother, had held
a secondary place, immediately upon Æðelred’s death, by the grace of
God, assumed the government of the whole realm, with the greatest
goodwill of all the inhabitants of the kingdom; which indeed, even
during his aforesaid brother’s life, he might, had he chosen, have done
with the greatest ease, and by the universal consent; truly, because
both in wisdom and in all good qualities he much excelled all his
brothers; and moreover because he was particularly warlike, and
successful in nearly all his battles[542].”
Footnote 540:
I speak now of periods subsequent to the consolidation of the
monarchy: while England was full of kinglets, disputes were not
infrequent. Northumberland and Wessex (previous to Beorhtríc’s
alliance with Offa) furnish examples. But here the competitors were
numerous, and the witan themselves split into parties, generally
maintaining the interests of _different_ royal families.
Footnote 541:
Asser, an. 871.
Footnote 542:
Simeon of Durham uses equally strong terms on the occasion. “Ælfredus
a ducibus et a praesulibus totius gentis eligitur, et non solum ab
ipsis, verumetiam ab omni populo adoratur, ut eis praeesset, ad
faciendam vindictam in nationibus, increpationes in populis.” An. 871.
-----
Not one word have we here about his nephews, or any rights they might
possess: and Asser seems to think royalty itself a matter entirely
dependent upon the popular will, and the good opinion entertained by the
nation of its king. I shall conclude this head by citing a few instances
from Saxon documents of the intervention of the witan in a king’s
election and inauguration.
In 924, the Chronicle says: “This year died Eádweard the king at
Fearndún, among the Mercians ... and Æðelstán was chosen king by the
Mercians, and consecrated at Kingston.”
Florence of Worcester, an. 959, distinctly asserts that Eádgar was
elected by all the people of England,—“ab omni Anglorum populo electus
... regnum suscepit.”
In 979, the Chronicle again says: “This year Æðelred took to the
kingdom; and he was soon after consecrated king at Kingston, with great
rejoicing of the English witan.”
In 1016, the election of Eádmund írensída is thus related: “Then befel
it that king Æðelred died ... and then after his death, all the witan
who were in London, and the townsmen, chose Eádmund to be king.” Again
in 1017: “This year was Cnut elected king.”
In 1036 again we have these words: “This year died Cnut the king at
Salisbury ... and soon after his decease there was a gemót of all the
witan (‘ealra witena gemót’) at Oxford: and Leófríc the eorl, and almost
all the thanes north of the Thames, and the _lithsmen_ in London chose
Harald to be chief of all England; to him and his brother Hardacnut who
was in Denmark.” This election was opposed unsuccessfully by Godwine and
the men of Wessex.
The Chronicle contains a very important entry under the date 1014. Upon
the death of Swegen, we are told that his army elected Cnut king: “But
all the witan who were in England, both clerical and lay, decided to
send after king Æðelred[543]; and they declared that no lord could be
dearer to them than their natural lord, if he would rule them more
justly than he had done before. Then the king sent his son Eádweard
hither, with his messengers, and commanded them to greet all his
people[544]; and he said that he would be a loving lord to them, and
amend all those things which they all abhorred; and that everything
which had been said or done against him should be forgiven, on condition
that they all, with one consent and without deceit, would be obedient to
him. Then they established full friendship, by word and pledge on either
side, and declared every Danish king an outlaw from England for ever.”
-----
Footnote 543:
He had fled to Normandy.
Footnote 544:
Leóde and leódscipe, the words used in the Chronicle, _may_ possibly
mean only the great officers or ministerials, the Frankish _Leudes_.
But the balance of probability is in favour of its representing _the
whole people_: leódscipe, which is the reading of the most
manuscripts, having a more general sense than leóde.
-----
Cnut nevertheless succeeded; but after the extinction of his short-lived
dynasty, we are told that all the people elected Eádweard the Confessor
king. “1041. This year died Hardacnut.... And before he was buried, all
the people elected Eádweard king, at London.” Another manuscript
reads:—“1042. This year died Hardacnut, as he stood at his drink.... And
all the people then received Eádweard for their king, as was his true
natural right.”
One more quotation from a manuscript of the Saxon Chronicle shall
conclude this head:—“1066. In this year was hallowed the minster at
Westminster on Childermas-day (Dec. 28th). And king Eádweard died on the
eve of Twelfth-day, and he was buried on Twelfth-day in the newly
consecrated church at Westminster. And Harald the earl succeeded to the
kingdom of England, even as the king had granted it unto him, and men
also had elected him thereto. And he was consecrated king on
Twelfth-day.”
The witan of England had met to aid in the consecration of Westminster
Abbey, and, as was their full right, proceeded to elect a king, on
Eádweard’s decease.
5. _The witan had the power to depose the king, if his government was
not conducted for the benefit of the people._
It is obvious that the very existence of this power would render its
exercise an event of very rare occurrence. Anglosaxon history does
however furnish one clear example. In 755, the witan of Wessex,
exasperated by the illegal conduct of king Sigeberht, deposed him from
the royal dignity, and elected his relative Cynewulf in his stead. The
fact is thus related by different authorities. The Chronicle[545] says
very shortly:—“This year, Cynewulf and the witan of the Westsaxons
deprived his kinsman Sigeberht of his kingdom, except Hampshire[546],
for his unjust deeds.”
-----
Footnote 545:
Chron. Sax. an. 755.
Footnote 546:
Perhaps his own, ancestral kingdom. Does not all this look very much
as if Wessex was still only a confederation of petty principalities,
with one elective and paramount head?
-----
Florence tells the same story, but in other words[547]:—“Cynewulf, a
scion of the royal race of Cerdic, with the counsel of the Westsaxon
_primates_, removed their king Sigeberht from his realm, on account of
the multitude of his iniquities, and reigned in his place: however he
granted to him one province, which is called Hampshire.”
-----
Footnote 547:
Flor. Wig. an. 755.
-----
Æðelweard[548], whose royal descent and usual pedantry conspire to make
his account of the matter somewhat hazy, says:—“So, after the lapse of a
year from the time when Sigeberht began to reign, Cynewulf invaded his
realm and took it from him; and he drew the _sapientes_ of all the
western country after him, apparently, on account of the irregular acts
of the said king,” etc.
-----
Footnote 548:
Æðelw. an. 755, lib. ii. c. 17.
-----
The fullest account however of the whole transaction is given by Henry
of Huntingdon[549], who very frequently shows a remarkable acquaintance
with Saxon authorities which are now lost, but from which he translates
and quotes at considerable length. These are his words:—“Sigeberht, the
kinsman of the aforesaid king, succeeded him, but he held the kingdom
for a short time only: for being swelled up and insolent through the
successes of his predecessor, he became intolerable even unto his own
people. But when he continued to ill-use them in every way, and either
twisted the laws to his own advantage, or turned them aside for his
advantage, Cumbra, the noblest of his ealdormen, at the petition of the
whole people, brought their complaints before the savage king. Whom, for
attempting to persuade him to rule his people more mercifully, and
setting his inhumanity aside to show himself an object of love to God
and man, he shortly after commanded to be put to an impious death: and
becoming still more fierce and intolerable to his people, he aggravated
his tyranny. In the beginning of the second year of his reign, Sigeberht
the king continuing incorrigible in his pride and iniquity, the princes
and people of the whole realm collected together; and by provident
deliberation and unanimous consent of all he was expelled from the
throne. But Cynewulf, an excellent young prince, of the royal race, was
elected to be king[550].”
-----
Footnote 549:
Hen. Hunt. Hist. Ang. lib. iv.
Footnote 550:
“Sigebertus rex, in principio secundi anni regni sui, cum
incorrigibilis superbiae et nequitiae esset, congregati sunt proceres
et populus totius regni, et provida deliberatione, et unanimi consensu
omnium expulsus est a regno. Kinewulf vero, iuvenis egregius de regia
stirpe oriundus, electus est in regem.”
-----
I have little doubt that an equally formal, though hardly equally
justifiable, proceeding severed Mercia from Eádwig’s kingdom, and
reconstituted it as a separate state under Eádgar[551]; and lastly from
Simeon of Durham we learn that the Northumbrian Alchred was deposed and
exiled, with the counsel and consent of all his people[552].
-----
Footnote 551:
Flor. Wig. an. 957.
Footnote 552:
“Eodem tempore, Alcredus rex, consilio et consensu omnium suorum,
regiae familiae principum destitutus societate, exilio imperii mutavit
maiestatem.” Sim. Dun. an. 774. Other Germanic tribes did the same
thing. “Sed cum Aldoaldus eversa mente insaniret, de regno eiectus
est.” Paul. Diae. Langob. iv. 43. Among the Burgundians, “generali
nomine rex appellatur Hendinos, et _ritu veteri_, potestate deposita
removetur, si sub eo fortuna titubaverit belli, vel segetum copiam
negaverit terra.” Amm. Marc. xxxiii. 5.
-----
6. _The king and the witan had power to appoint prelates to vacant
sees._
As many of the witan were the most eminent of the clergy, and the people
might be fairly considered to be represented by the secular members of
the body, these elections were perhaps more canonical than the Frankish,
and assuredly more so than those which take place under our system by
_congé d’élire_. The necessary examples will be found in the Saxon
Chronicle, an. 971, 995, 1050. But one may be mentioned at length. In
959 Dúnstán was elected archbishop of Canterbury “consilio
sapientum[553].”
-----
Footnote 553:
“Dehinc beatus Dunstanus, Æthelmi archiepiscopi ex fratre nepos,
Glæstaniæ abbas, post Huicciorum et Londoniensium episcopus, ex
respectu divino et sapientum consilio, primae metropolis Anglorum
primas et patriarcha.” Flor. Wig. an. 959.
-----
7. _They had also power to regulate ecclesiastical matters, appoint
fasts and festivals, and decide upon the levy and expenditure of
ecclesiastical revenue._
The great question of monachism which convulsed the church and kingdom
in the tenth century, was several times brought before the consideration
of the witan, who, both clerical and lay, were very much divided upon
the subject. This perhaps is a sufficient reason why no formal act of
the gemót was ever passed on the subject, and the solution of the
problem was left to the bishops in their several cathedrals: but no
reader of Saxon history can be ignorant that it was frequently brought
before the gemót, and that it was the cause of deep and frequent
dissensions among the witan[554]. The festival days of St. Eádweard and
St. Dúnstán were fixed by the authority of the witan on the 15th Kal.
April and 14th Kal. June respectively[555]; and the laws contain many
provisions for the due keeping of the Sabbath, and the strict
celebration of fasts and festivals[556]. The levying of church-shots,
soul-shots, light-alms, plough-alms, tithes, and a variety of other
church imposts, the payment of which could not be otherwise legally
binding upon the laity, was made law by frequently repeated chapters in
the acts of the witan: these are much too numerous to need
specification. They direct the amount to be paid, the time of payment,
and the penalties to be inflicted on defaulters: nay, they actually
direct the mode in which such payments when received should be
distributed and applied by the receivers[557]. They establish, as law of
the land, the prohibitions to marry within certain degrees of
relationship: and lastly they adopt and sanction many regulations of the
fathers and bishops, respecting the life and conversation of priests and
deacons, canons, monks and religious women. On all these points it is
sufficient to give a general reference to the laws, which are full of
regulations even to the minutest details.
-----
Footnote 554:
Flor. Wig. an. 975, says, “Et in synodo constituti, se nequaquam ferre
posse dixerunt, ut monachi eiicerentur de regno.”
Footnote 555:
Æðelr. v. § 16. Cnut, i. § 17. Thorpe, i. 310, 370.
Footnote 556:
For example, Cnut, i. § 14, 15, 16. Thorpe, i. 368, etc.
Footnote 557:
For example, Æðelr. ix. § 6. Thorpe, i. 342. Æðelr. vi. § 51. Thorpe,
i. 328, etc.
-----
8. _The king and the witan had power to levy taxes for the public
service._
I have observed in an earlier chapter of this work that the estates of
the freeman were bound to make certain settled payments. These may at
some time or other have been voluntary, but there can be no doubt that
they did ultimately become compulsory payments. They are the cyninges
gafol, payable on the hide, and may possibly be the cyninges útware, and
cyninges geban of the laws, the _contributions directes_ by which a
man’s station in society was often measured. Now in the time of Ini, we
find the witan regulating the amount of this tax or gafol, in barley, at
six pounds weight upon the hide[558]. Again, under the extraordinary
circumstances of the Danish war under Æðelred, when it became almost
customary to buy off the invaders, we find them authorising the levy of
large sums for that purpose[559], and also for the maintenance of
fleets[560]: these payments, once known by the name of Danegeld, and
which in 1018 amounted to the enormous sum of 82,500 pounds[561], were
after thirty-nine years’ continuance finally abolished by Eádweard[562].
-----
Footnote 558:
Ini, § 59. Thorpe, i. 140. Wyrhta like the factus (= Mansus) of the
Franks appears to be the Mansio or Hide. But the amounts do not
concern us at present.
Footnote 559:
Chron. Sax. an. 1006. The sum raised was thirty-six thousand pounds.
Chron. an. 1012. In this year forty-eight thousand pounds were paid.
Footnote 560:
Chron. Sax. an. 1008. A ship from every three hundred hides; and a
helmet and coat-of-mail from every eight hides,—a very heavy amount of
shipmoney.
Footnote 561:
Chron. Sax. an. 1018.
Footnote 562:
Ibid. an. 1052.
-----
9. _The king and his witan had power to raise land and sea forces when
occasion demanded._
The king always possessed of himself the right to call out the ban or
armed militia of the freemen: he also possessed the right of commanding
at all times the service of his comites and their vassals: but the armed
force of the freemen could only be kept on foot for a definite period,
and probably within definite limits. It seems therefore that when the
pressure of extraordinary circumstances called for more than common
efforts, and the nation was to be urged to unusual exertions, the
authority of the witan was added to that of the king; and that much more
extensive levies were made than by merely calling out the _hereban_ or
_landsturm_. And this particularly applies to naval armaments, which
were hardly a part of the constitutional force, at all events not to any
great extent[563]. Accordingly we find in the Chronicle that the king
and the witan commanded armaments to be made against the Danes in 999,
and at the same time directed a particular service to be sung in the
churches. We learn distinctly from another event that the disposal of
this force depended upon the popular will: for when Svein, king of the
Danes, made application to Eádweard the Confessor for a naval force in
aid of his war against Magnus of Norway, and Godwine recommended
compliance, we find that it was refused because Earl Leófríc of
Coventry, and all the people, with one voice opposed it[564].
-----
Footnote 563:
The Butsecarls or shipmen of the seaports may possibly have been
obliged to find shipping and serve on board.
Footnote 564:
Flor. 1047, 1048. Compare Chron. Sax. _in an. cit._
-----
10. _The witan possessed the power of recommending, assenting to, and
guaranteeing grants of lands, and of permitting the conversion of
folcland into bócland, and vice versâ._
With regard to the first part of this assertion, it will be sufficient
to refer to any page of the Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici: it is
impossible almost to find a single grant in that collection which does
not openly profess to have been made by the king, “cum consilio,
consensu et licentia procerum,” or similar expressions. And the
necessity for such consent will appear intelligible when we consider
that these grants must be understood, either to be direct conversions of
folcland (fiscal or public property) into bócland (private estates),
beneficiary into hereditary tenure; or, that they contain licences to
free particular lands from the ancient, customary dues to the state. In
both cases the public revenue, of which king and witan were fiduciary
administrators, was concerned: inasmuch as nearly every estate,
transferred from folcland to bócland, became just so much withdrawn from
the general stock of ways and means. Only in the case where lands were
literally exchanged from one category into the other, did the state
sustain no loss. Of this we have evidence in a charter of the year
858[565]. The king and Wulfláf his thane exchanged lands in Kent,
Æðelberht receiving an estate of five plough-lands at Mersham and giving
five plough-lands at Wassingwell. The king then freed the land at
Wassingwell in as ample degree as that at Mersham had been freed; that
is, from every description of service, or impost, except the three
inevitable burthens, of military service, and repair of fortifications
and bridges. And having done so, he made the land at Mersham, folcland,
i. e., imposed the burthens upon it.
-----
Footnote 565:
Cod. Dipl. No. 281.
-----
That this is a just view of the powers of the witan in respect to the
folcland, further appears from instances where the king and the witan,
on one part, as representatives of the nation for that purpose, make
grants to the king in his individual capacity. In 847, a case of this
kind occurred: Æðelwulf of Wessex obtained twenty hides of land at Ham,
as an estate of inheritance, from his witan[566]. The words used are
very explicit: “I Æðelwulf, by God’s aid king of the Westsaxons, with
the consent and licence of my bishops and my princes, have caused a
certain small portion of land, consisting of twenty hides, to be
described by its boundaries, to me, as an estate of inheritance.” And
again: “These are the boundaries of those twenty hides which Æðelwulf’s
senators granted to him at Ham.” We learn that Offa, king of the
Mercians, had in a similar manner caused one hundred and ten hides in
Kent to be given to him and his heirs as an estate of bócland[567],
which he had afterwards left to the monastery at Bedford. And this is a
peculiarly valuable record, because it was only by conquest that Offa
and his witan could have obtained a right to dispose of lands beyond the
limits of his own kingdom. Between 901 and 909 the witan of the
Westsaxons booked a very small portion of land to Ælfred’s son Eádweard,
for the site of his monastery at Winchester[568]. In 963 we have another
instance: Eádgár caused five hides to be given him at Peatanige as an
estate of inheritance. The terms of the document are unusual: he says,
“I _have_ a portion of land,” etc., but he frees it from all burthens
but the three, and renders it heritable. The rubric says: “This is the
charter of five hides at Peatanige, which are Eádgár’s the king’s,
during his day and after his day, to have, or to give to whom it
pleaseth him best[569].” Again in 964, the same prince gave to his wife
Ælfðrýð ten hides at Aston in Berkshire, as an estate of inheritance,
“consilio satellitum, pontificum, comitum, militum[570].” It is obvious
that in all these cases the grants were made out of public land, and
were not the private estates of the king.
-----
Footnote 566:
Cod. Dipl. No. 260.
Footnote 567:
Ibid. No. 1019.
Footnote 568:
Ibid. No. 1087.
Footnote 569:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1246. “Aliquam terrae particulam [h]abeo, id est
quinque mansas ... æt Peatanige, quatinus bene perfruar, ac
perpetualiter possideam, vita comite, et post me cuicunque voluero
perhenniter haeredi derelinquam in aeternam haereditatem,” etc.
Footnote 570:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1253.
-----
11. _The witan possessed the power of adjudging the lands of offenders
and intestates to be forfeit to the king._
This power applied to bócland, as well as folcland, and was exercised in
cases which are by no means confined to the few enumerated in the laws.
Indeed the latter may very probably refer to nothing but the chattels or
personal property of the offender; while the real estate might be
transferred to the king, by the solemn act of the witan. A few examples
will make this clear.
Ælfred, condemned for treason or rebellion against Æðelstán, lost his
lands by the judgment of the witan, who bestowed them upon the
king[571]. In 1002 a lady forfeited her lands for her incontinence; the
king became seised of them, obviously by the act of the gemót, for he
calls it _vulgaris traditio_[572]. Again, the lands of certain people
which had been forfeited for theft, are described as having been granted
to the king, “iusto valde iudicio totius populi, seniorum et
primatum[573].”
-----
Footnote 571:
Ibid. No. 1112.
Footnote 572:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1295.
Footnote 573:
Ibid. No. 374.
-----
The case of intestacy is proved by a charter of Ecgberht in 825. He gave
fifteen hides at Aulton to Winchester, and made title in these words.
“Now this land, a very faithful reeve of mine called Burghard formerly
possessed by my grant: but he afterwards dying childless, left the land
without a will, and he had no survivors: and so the land with all its
boundaries was restored to me, its former possessor, by judicial decree
of my _optimates_[574].”
-----
Footnote 574:
Ibid. No. 1035.
-----
Other examples may be found in the quotations given in page 52 of this
volume; to which I may add a case of forfeiture for suicide[575].
-----
Footnote 575:
The charter which furnishes the evidence of this fact will appear in
the seventh volume of the Codex Diplomaticus. It is in the archives of
Westminster Abbey, and its date is the time of Eádgár. [The death of
Mr. Kemble in 1857 prevented the publication of this seventh volume.]
-----
12. _Lastly, the witan acted as a supreme court of justice, both in
civil and criminal causes._
The fact of important trials being decided by the witena gemót is
obvious from a very numerous list of charters recording the result of
such trials, and printed in the Codex Diplomaticus. It is perfectly
unnecessary to give examples; they occur continually in the pages of
that work. The documents are in great detail, giving the names of the
parties, the heads of the case, sometimes the very steps in the trial,
and always recording the place and date of the gemót, and the names of
those who presided therein.
The proceedings of the witan as a court of criminal jurisprudence, are
well exemplified in the case of earl Godwine and his family daring their
patriotic struggle for power with the foreign minions of Eádweard, and
the northern earls, the hereditary enemies of their house. Eustace the
count of Boulogne, then on a visit to Eádweard, having with a small
armed retinue attempted violence against some of the inhabitants of
Dover, was set upon by the townsmen, and after a severe loss hardly
succeeded in making his escape. He hastened to Gloucester, where
Eádweard then held his court, and laid his complaint before the king.
Godwine, as earl of Kent, was commanded to set out with his forces, and
inflict summary punishment upon the burghers who had dared to maltreat a
relative of the king. But the stern old statesman saw matters in a very
different light: he probably found no reason to punish the inhabitants
of one of his best towns, for an act of self defence, especially one
which had read a severe lesson to the foreign adventurers, who abused
the weakness of an incapable prince, and domineered over the land. He
therefore flatly refused, and withdrew from Gloucester to join his sons
Harald and Swegen who lay at Beverston and Langtree with a considerable
power. The king being reinforced by a well-appointed contingent from the
northern earldoms, affairs threatened to be brought to a bloody
termination. The conduct of Godwine and his family had been represented
to Eádweard in the most unfavourable colours, and the demand they made
that the obnoxious strangers should be given up to them, only aggravated
his deep resentment. However for a time peace was maintained, hostages
were given on either side, and a witena gemót was proclaimed, to meet in
London, at the end of a fortnight, September 21st, 1048. On the arrival
of the earls in Southwark, they found that a greatly superior force from
the commands of Leofríc, Sigeward and Raulf awaited them: desertion
thinned their numbers, and when the king demanded back his hostages,
they were compelled to comply. Godwine and Harald were now summoned to
appear before the gemót and make answer to what should be brought
against them. They demanded, though probably with little expectation of
obtaining, a safe conduct to and from the gemót, which was refused; and
as they very properly declined under such circumstances to appear, five
days were allowed them to leave England altogether.
It is probable that the strictly legal forms were followed on this
occasion, although the composition of the gemót was such that justice
could not have been done. The same observation will apply to another
witena gemót holden in London, after Godwine’s triumphant return to
England, though with a very different result. Before this assembly the
earl appeared, easily cleared himself of all offences laid to his
charge, and obtained the outlawry and banishment from England of all the
Frenchmen whose pernicious councils had put dissension between the king
and his people. Other examples might be given of outlawry, and even
heavier sentences, as blinding, if not death, pronounced by the high
court of the witan. But as these are all the result of internal
dissensions, they resemble rather the violence of impeachments by an
irresistible majority, than the calm, impassive judgments of a judicial
assembly[576].
-----
Footnote 576:
At a gemót in 1055, earl Ælfgár was outlawed. At a gemót in 1066 at
Oxford, earl Tostig was outlawed, etc.
-----
Such were the powers of the witena gemót, and it must be confessed that
they were extensive. Of the manner of the deliberations or the forms of
business we know little, but it is not likely that they were very
complicated. We may conclude that the general outline of the proceedings
was something of the following order. On common occasions the king
summoned his witan to attend him at some royal vill, at Christmas, or at
Easter, for festive and ceremonial as well as business purposes. On
extraordinary occasions he issued summonses according to the nature of
the exigency, appointing the time and place of meeting. When assembled,
the witan commenced their session by attending divine service[577], and
formally professing their adherence to the catholic faith[578]. The king
then brought his propositions before them, in the Frankish manner[579],
and after due deliberation they were accepted, modified, or rejected.
The reeves, and perhaps on occasion officers specially designated for
that service[580], carried the chapters down into the several counties,
and there took a _wed_ or pledge from the freemen that they would abide
by what had been enacted. This last fact, important to us in more
respects than one, is substantiated by the following evidence. Toward
the close of the Judicia Civitatis Londoniae (cap. 10), passed in the
reign of Æðelstán, and subsidiary to the acts of various gemóts held by
him, we find:—“All the witan gave their pledges together to the
archbishop at Thundersfield, when Ælfheáh Stybb and Brihtnóð, Odda’s
son, came to meet the gemót by the king’s command, that each reeve
should take the pledge in his own shire, that they would all hold the
frið, as king Æðelstán and the witan had counselled it, first at
Greátanleá, and again at Exeter, and afterwards at Feversham, and the
fourth time at Thundersfield,” etc.
-----
Footnote 577:
See vol. i. p. 145 note.
Footnote 578:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1019.
Footnote 579:
I conclude this from the Prologue to Ælfred’s Laws.
Footnote 580:
The Franks and the church were familiar with such officers, who under
the name of _Missi_ were dispatched into the provinces for special
purposes. Perhaps the Ælfheáh and Brihtnóð mentioned in the Judicia
Civitatis were the Missi who were to be employed on this commission.
-----
We have also a very remarkable document addressed to the same king,
apparently upon receipt of the acts of the council at Feversham, by the
men of Kent, denoting their acceptance of the same. They commence by
saying:—“Dearest! Thy bishops of Kent, and all the thanes of Kentshire,
earls and churls[581], return thanks to thee their dearest lord, for
what thou hast been pleased to ordain respecting our peace, and to
enquire and consult concerning our advantage, since great was the need
thereof for us all, both rich and poor. And this we have taken in hand,
with all the diligence we could, by the aid of those witan [_sapientes_]
whom thou didst send unto us,” etc[582].
-----
Footnote 581:
Mr. Hallam, in his Supplemental Notes, p. 229, remarks upon this
important document: “It is moreover an objection to considering this a
formal enactment by the witan of the shire, that it runs in the names
of ‘thaini, comites et villani.’ Can it be maintained that the ceorls
ever formed an integrant element of the legislature in the kingdom of
Kent? It may be alleged that their name was inserted, though they had
not been formally consenting parties, as we find in some parliamentary
grants of money much later. But this would be an arbitrary conjecture,
and the terms ‘omnes thaini,’ etc. are very large.”