CHAPTER XIV.

_THE LAWS OF THE KENTISH KINGS._

I. DISTINCTION FROM ANGLO-SAXON LAWS, A.D. 596-696.

The laws of the Kentish kings, if they had been on all fours with the other Anglo-Saxon laws, would have taken back the general evidence for Anglo-Saxon custom another hundred years earlier than the Laws of Ine, and nearer the time of the conquest of Britain. As it is, however, they have to be treated as in part exceptional.

[Sidenote: Belgic agriculture.]

It is very probable that for a long period the proximity of Kent to the Continent had resulted in the approximation of its social and economic conditions to those of the opposite shore of the Channel. The south-east corner of Britain was described by Cæsar as having been colonised by Belgæ and as having been for some time under Belgic rule. The Belgic tribes were the furthest advanced of Celtic tribes and, according to Cæsar, had fostered agriculture, while his informants spoke of the interior of Britain as pastoral.

Under Roman rule the prominence of agriculture was continued. Ammianus Marcellinus describes large exports of British corn to supply Roman legions on the Rhine. He speaks of the British _tributarii_ in a way which suggests that this part of Britain under Roman rule had become subject to economic arrangements similar to those of the Belgic provinces of Gaul.

[Sidenote: The sulungs and yokes of Kent.]

The introduction, by invitation, of the Jutes into Kent and their settlement, in the first instance at all events, under a friendly agreement of payment of _annonæ_, may have given an exceptional character to the results of ultimate conquest. The permanent prominence of agriculture is perhaps shown by the fiscal assessment in ‘sulungs’ and ‘yokes’ instead of hides and virgates.

[Sidenote: Early clerical influences.]

The exceptional conditions of the Kentish district were continued by its being the earliest to come into close contact with the court of the Merovingian Franks, and with ecclesiastical influences from Rome. The mission of St. Augustine resulted in the codification of Kentish custom into written laws a century earlier than the date of the earliest laws of Wessex.

The peculiar character of Kentish custom may have been further maintained by the partial isolation of Kent. The kingdom of the Kentish kings, though lessened in Ethelbert’s time by the encroachment of Wessex, had maintained its independence of both the Northumbrian and Mercian supremacy or Bretwaldorship.

Apart from any original difference in custom between Jutish and other tribes this isolation naturally produced divergence in some respects from the customs of the rest of Anglo-Saxon England and may perhaps partly explain why the Laws of the Kentish Kings came to be included in only one of the early collections of Anglo-Saxon laws.

Further, when we approach the subject of Kentish wergelds we do so with the direct warning, already alluded to, of the writer of the so-called Laws of Henry I., that we shall find them differing greatly from those of Wessex.

[Sidenote: Wergelds said to differ from those of Wessex and Mercia.]

This we have said according to our law and custom, but the difference of wergeld is great in Kent, _villanorum et baronum_.

Moreover, in after times Kentish custom differed from that of other parts of England in the matter of succession. The custom of Gavelkind prevailed in Kent. And among the statutes after the Norman Conquest there is an undated statement setting forth peculiar customs of Kent in matters where they differed from those of the rest of the kingdom.

Some of these differences may have been of later origin, but a comparison of the laws themselves with other Anglo-Saxon laws is conclusive upon the point that important differences always existed and, what is more, were recognised as existing.

Although the Kentish laws are not included with other Anglo-Saxon laws in any manuscript but that of Rochester, yet they were known to King Alfred. He mentioned them in the proem to his laws as well as the Mercian laws as among those which he had before him in framing his own. Moreover, we have seen that at the time of the Danish invasion certain differences between the Kentish and other laws were known and noted correctly in the fragment ‘Of Grith and of Mund.’

Finally, in its system of monetary reckoning the Kentish kingdom seems to have been peculiar from the first. And as our knowledge of the Kentish wergelds is essential to an understanding of the division of classes, a good deal must depend upon a previous understanding of the currency in which the amounts of the wergelds are described. Before proceeding further it is necessary, therefore, to devote a section to a careful consideration of the subject. The experience already gained will not be thrown away if it should help us to understand the meaning of the scætts and scillings of the Kentish laws.

II. THE SCÆTTS AND SCILLINGS OF THE KENTISH LAWS.

All the payments mentioned in the Kentish laws are stated in scætts and scillings--naturally, by far the larger number of them in the latter.

What were these scætts and scillings? First, what were the scætts?[278]

[Sidenote: The scætts of 28·8 wheat-grains like Merovingian tremissis.]

We have already seen that before the time of Offa the silver coinage current in England consisted mainly of the silver tremisses of Merovingian standard, _i.e._ twenty to the Roman ounce, or 28·8 wheat-grains. These are known to numismatists as silver pence of the _Sceatt_ series.

That these silver coins were those known by the name of sceatts we seem to have the direct and independent evidence of the following fragment ‘On Mercian Law,’ already quoted but sufficiently important to be repeated here.[279]

Ceorles wergild is on Myrcna lage cc scill.

The ceorl’s wergeld is in the law of the Mercians 200 scillings.

Þegnes wergild is syx swa micel, þæt bið twelf hund scill.

The thane’s wergeld is six times as much, _i.e._ 1200 scillings.

Þonne bið cynges anfeald wergild six þegna wer be Myrcna laga þæt is xxx þusend sceatta, and þæt bið ealles cxx punda.…

Then is the King’s simple wergeld six thanes’ wergeld by Mercian law, _i.e._ 30,000 sceatts, and that is in all 120 pounds.…

Now, as previously observed, the sum of 30,000 sceatts must evidently be taken as a round sum. The statement that the King’s simple wergeld was 120 pounds or six times the thane’s wergeld of 1,200 Mercian scillings seems to make this clear, for 7200 Mercian scillings of four sceatts (28,800 sceatts) would amount exactly to 120 pounds.[280]

[Sidenote: The sceatts minted by Kentish moneyers.]

That the sceatts of this fragment of Mercian law were the same silver coins as the scætts of the Kentish laws is further confirmed by numismatic evidence. The evidence of the coins themselves and of the names of the moneyers impressed on them seems to make it probable that to a large extent till the time of Egbert, who was intimate with Charlemagne, and perhaps even till the time of his grandson Ethelbald, in the words of Mr. Keary, ‘Kent still provided all the currency of the South.’[281] It would seem, therefore, that practically during the whole period of the issue of the silver pence of the Sceatt series the greater part of them were minted by Kentish moneyers. And thus numismatic evidence applies not only to the coinage of Wessex but also to that of Mercia.[282]

We can hardly be wrong, then, in thinking that this valuable fragment of Mercian law in using the word sceatt referred back to ancient custom before the sceatt had been superseded by the penny, and therefore must be good evidence that the silver coins called sceatts in Mercia were similar to those called scætts in Kent. In other words the Kentish _scætt_, notwithstanding the slight difference in spelling, was almost certainly the silver _sceatt_ of 28·8 wheat-grains, _i.e._ twenty to the Roman ounce.

It is quite true that the word _sceatt_ was used in the laws in two senses, sometimes for ‘money’ or ‘property,’ and sometimes for the coin.[283] But so also was the _scætt_ of the Kentish laws.[284] And it may not always be easy to ascertain with certainty which meaning is the right one.

But the Kentish and Mercian laws were not alone in using the word for the silver coin. The phrase ‘sceatts and scillings’ was elsewhere used to denote the typical smaller and larger monetary unit, or perhaps we ought to say the silver and the gold unit.

In the tenth-century translation of the New Testament the word _denarius_ is translated by ‘pæning;’ for long before this the penny of 32 wheat-grains had superseded the old coinage of the ‘Sceatt series.’ But in the translation of Ulphilas the word ‘_skatt_’ is used for the silver _denarius_.[285]

At the same time it is important to observe that the word _scilling_ was the Gothic word applied to the _gold solidus_ in legal documents of the sixth century during Gothic rule in Italy.

According to the bilingual records in the archives of the Gothic church of St. Anastasia at Ravenna payments were made in so many ‘skilligans.’[286] So that probably silver skatts and certainly gold scillings were familiar to the Goths of Italy.

[Sidenote: Sceatts and scillings.]

Again, sceatts and scillings were evidently the two monetary units familiar to the mind of Cædmon or whoever was the author of the metrical translation of Genesis. In c. xiv. 23 Abraham is made to swear that he would take neither ‘sceat ne scilling’ from the King of Sodom.

Moreover, in the fragment on Oaths[287] in the Anglo-Saxon Laws (Thorpe, p. 76) the same phrase is used:

On lifiendes Godes naman. ne ðearf ic N. sceatt ne scylling. ne pænig ne pæniges weorð.

(s. 11) In the name of the living God I owe not to N. _sceatt nor scilling_, not penny nor penny’s worth.

Surely in both cases the phrase ‘sceatt ne scilling’ refers to coins or units of account of two denominations in current use, as in the Kentish laws.

It is even possible perhaps to find an illustration of the reckoning in sceatts and scillings in the well-known passage in the ‘Scald’s Tale’ already quoted.

se me beag forgeaf on tham siex hund wæs smætes goldes gescyred sceatta scilling-rime.

He me a bracelet gave on which six hundred was of beaten gold scored of sceatts in scillings reckoned.

If these words may be properly translated literally ‘Of sceatts in scillings reckoned’[288] and are taken to mean ‘600 sceatts in scillings reckoned,’ the phrase accords very closely with the method of reckoning in the Salic laws--‘so many hundred denarii, _i.e._ so many solidi.’

Returning to the sceatts and scillings of the Laws of Ethelbert, the most obvious suggestion would be that the currency in Kent was similar to that on the other side of the Channel under the Merovingian princes. The two courts were so closely connected by Ethelbert’s marriage, and probably by trade intercourse, that the most likely guess, at first sight, would be that the Kentish scætts were silver tremisses and the Kentish scillings gold solidi like those of the Lex Salica.

We have seen that the Merovingian currency was mainly in _gold tremisses_, and as many of the 100 gold tremisses contained in the celebrated ‘Crondale find’ are believed by numismatists to have been coined in Kent, by English moneyers, the currency of gold tremisses in England is directly confirmed, though the silver currency seems very soon to have superseded it.[289]

[Sidenote: The scilling of 20 scætts = one ounce of silver.]

At the date of Ethelbert’s Laws (A.D. 596) the Merovingian currency was still mainly gold--_i.e._ gold tremisses, three of which went to the gold solidus of the Salic Laws. And if the scilling of Ethelbert, like the solidus of the Franks, had been a solidus of forty denarii we might have concluded at once that Ethelbert’s scilling, like the Merovingian solidus, was a solidus of three gold tremisses, or forty silver sceatts.

But the facts apparently will not allow us to come to this conclusion.

Schmid has shown--I think, conclusively--by inference from certain passages in Ethelbert’s Laws, that the Kentish scilling was of _twenty_ scætts instead of forty.[290] We therefore must deal with the Kentish scilling on its own evidence.

Now, twenty sceatts of 28·8 wheat-grains, as we have seen, made the Roman ounce of 576 wheat-grains. The Kentish scilling was therefore the equivalent of an ounce of silver. And so in the Kentish laws, so far as reckoning in silver was concerned, the same method was adopted as that of the Welsh, who reckoned in _scores_ or _unciæ_ of silver, and that which became the common Frankish and Norman reckoning of twenty pence to the ounce and twelve ounces to the pound.

Indeed, when we consider that under common Scandinavian custom gold and silver were weighed and reckoned in marks, _ores_, and ortugs, it would seem natural that the Kentish immigrants from the North should have been already familiar with a reckoning in _ores_ or ounces of silver.

But why did they call the ounce of silver a scilling? We might as well perhaps ask why the Wessex scilling was five pence and the Mercian scilling four pence. But the word _scilling_ had, as we have seen, been used by the Goths in Italy for the gold solidus. And on the Continent the gold solidus in the sixth and seventh centuries, and indeed till the time of Charlemagne, was so far the recognised symbol of value that the wergelds of the Northern tribes, whether they remained in the north or emigrated southwards, were invariably stated in their laws in gold solidi. The most natural inference would therefore seem to be that the Kentish scilling, like that of the Salic law, must have been a gold solidus equated, however, in account with twenty silver pence or scætts.

[Sidenote: The Kentish scilling probably a solidus of two gold tremisses like the Saxon solidus.]

Now, at the ratio of 1:10 the ore or ounce of twenty silver scætts would equal a gold solidus of two gold tremisses instead of three.[291] And when it is considered that the main Merovingian currency on the other side of the Channel was of gold tremisses it seems natural that the ounce of silver should be equated with an even number of gold tremisses.

Nor would there be anything unprecedented or unusual in a gold solidus of two tremisses instead of three. For we have seen that when Charlemagne conquered the Frisians and the Saxons, he found that the solidi in which they had traditionally paid their wergelds were not always, like the Imperial and the Salic solidi, of three gold tremisses, but that each district had its own peculiar solidus. The solidus of the southern division of Frisia was of two and a half gold tremisses. The solidus of the middle district was the ordinary gold solidus of three tremisses. The traditional solidus of the district presumably nearest to the Jutes, _i.e._ on both the Frisian and the Saxon side of the Weser, was the solidus of two tremisses. The Saxon solidus of two tremisses, representing the one-year-old bullock, was that in which according to the Lex Saxonum the Saxon wergelds had been traditionally paid.

We have no distinct mention of a Jutish solidus, but as the Jutes probably came from a district not far from that of the North Frisians and Saxons there would be nothing abnormal or surprising in their reckoning in the same solidus as their neighbours, viz. in the gold solidus of two tremisses, and in the Kentish immigrants continuing the same practice. But this as yet is only conjecture.

So far, then, as the facts of the prevalent coinage and currency are concerned, all that can be said is that the hypothesis that the Kentish scilling was that of two gold tremisses has a good deal of probability in its favour. But there is other and more direct evidence of the truth of the hypothesis.

In the first place, as already stated, in the preface to King Alfred’s Laws he expressly mentions his knowledge of the laws, not only of Ine and of Offa, but also of Ethelbert, the inference being that in his own laws he retained, _inter alia_, some of the enactments of Ethelbert which were in his own view worth retaining.[292]

[Sidenote: Confirmation by other evidence. The King’s mund-byrd of five pounds common to Wessex and Kent.]

Now, King Alfred _fixed the king’s mund-byrd at five pounds_ of silver, _i.e._ 240 Wessex scillings, while he must have known that in the Kentish law the king’s mund-byrd was fifty Kentish scillings. The difference in scillings must have struck him, but he probably knew perfectly well what the Kentish scillings were. For when we compare these two mund-byrds we find that at a ratio between gold and silver of 1:12 (which, as we have seen, was the Frankish ratio of Charlemagne’s successors) fifty Kentish scillings of two gold tremisses did equal exactly five pounds. Fifty Kentish scillings or 100 Merovingian gold tremisses, at 1:12 were equal to 1200 silver tremisses or sceatts of the same weight, _i.e._ five pounds of 240 sceatts; or, in other words, 100 gold tremisses (_nova moneta_) were equal at the same ratio to five pounds of 240 of King Alfred’s pence of 32 wheat-grains. The equation was exact.

And further, we have seen that in the time of Cnut the Kentish king’s mund-byrd was well known and declared to be five pounds according to Kentish law, although in that law it was stated to be 50 scillings.

The passage has already been quoted from the MS. G of Cnut’s Church law, s. 3, in which, after stating that ‘the grith-bryce of the chief minster in cases entitled to “bot” is according to the king’s mund, that is five pounds by English law,’ the additional information is inserted,[293]

On cent lande æt þam mund bryce v pund þam cingce.

In Kent land for the mund-bryce v pounds to the King.

Further in the same MS. G of Cnut’s secular law, s. 63, is the following:[294]--

Gif hwa ham socne ge wyrce ge bete ꝥ mid .v. pundan. þam cingce on engla lage ⁊ on cent æt ham socne v. þam cingce ⁊ þreo þam arce bisceope ⁊ dena lage swa hit ærsteod ⁊ gif hine mon þær afylle licge ægilde.

If anyone commit hamsocn let him make bot for it with v pounds to the King by English law, and in Kent from hamsocn v to the King and three to the archbishop and by Danish law as it formerly stood, and if he there be killed let him lie unpaid for.

It is not very clear what the _ham-socn_ was. In the Latin versions it is translated by ‘invasio domi.’ And it seems to be the same thing as the ‘heimsókn’ of the Norse laws.[295] It seems to be a breach of the peace within the sacred precinct of the ‘heim,’ and the penalty seems to place it on the same ground as the borh-bryce and mund-byrd of the king so as to have become in Cnut’s time one of the crimes which in Kent also involved a penalty of fifty Kentish scillings.[296]

Here, then, the inference again is that fifty Kentish scillings were equal in Cnut’s time to five pounds of silver.

It is quite true that these two statements of Kentish law are not found in the other manuscripts of Cnut’s laws, so that in one sense they may be regarded as interpolations, but in the MS. G they are not insertions made afterwards. In both passages the words form an integral part of the text, which throughout is written in a clear and excellent hand.

It is difficult to suggest any reason for the insertion of these two statements of Kentish law other than the deliberate intention to point out that the amount of the Kentish king’s mund-byrd of fifty Kentish scillings was the same as the Wessex mund-byrd of five pounds of silver.

In addition, therefore, to the fact that at a ratio of 1:12 between gold and silver the two amounts were alike, these passages seem to show that the penalty of fifty Kentish scillings had become permanently recognised in Cnut’s time as equal to the English penalty of five pounds of silver.[297]

If the comparison had been made throughout in silver sceatts, the equation would not have held good so exactly, for 1000 sceatts would not have equalled exactly five pounds, _i.e._ 1200 of the same sceatts. The exact equation seems to have been between fifty Kentish gold scillings of two tremisses, and five pounds of silver at the current Frankish ratio of 1:12. So that the direct evidence of these passages from Cnut’s laws goes very far to verify the hypothesis derived from numismatic considerations that the scilling of the Kentish laws was a gold scilling of two tremisses, like that of the Continental Saxons and North-East Frisians.

[Sidenote: Scætts cannot have been farthings.]

It is, however, only fair to say that Schmid, while adhering to the view that the Kentish scilling was of twenty sceatts, has suggested that these sceatts may have been, not silver tremisses or pence, but _farthings_, so that the Kentish scilling of twenty farthings might be identical with the Wessex scilling of 5_d._[298] Konrad von Maurer held the same view.[299] But if this could be supposed for a moment, the Kentish scætt would then be only one quarter of the sceatt of the fragment of Mercian law, and the mund-byrd of King Ethelbert would be only a quarter of that of the Wessex King, notwithstanding the assertion in MS. G of the Laws of Cnut that the Kentish mund-byrd was five pounds of silver, like those of other English laws. With all deference, therefore, to the view of these great authorities, a careful examination of the evidence seems to lead to the conclusion that it cannot be maintained. Nor does there appear to be any reason why the Kentish scilling should be expected to be the same as the Wessex scilling, as we know that the Wessex scilling of 5_d._ differed from the Mercian scilling of 4_d._

[Sidenote: Kentish scilling therefore of two gold tremisses or twenty silver scætts or Roman ounce.]

We adhere, then, to the view that the Kentish scilling was a scilling of two gold tremisses like the Saxon solidus, and that it was equated with the ore or Roman ounce of silver, _i.e._ twenty sceatts.

The reader will be able to form his own judgment as to whether examination of the various clauses of the Kentish Laws and the amounts of the wergelds and other payments now to be considered will confirm this conclusion or not. I think it will be found substantially to do so.

III. THE LAWS OF ETHELBERT.

The Laws of Ethelbert begin with the heading: ‘These are the dooms which King Ethelbert established in the days of Augustine.’

[Sidenote: Evidence of clerical influence.]

This heading probably did not form a part of the original laws, but it may serve to remind us that ecclesiastical influence must be reckoned with in their consideration and that some of their clauses may have been modifications of ancient custom rather than statements of what it originally was.

The first clause is as follows:--

Godes feoh ⁊ ciricean .xii. gylde. Biscopes feoh .xi. gylde. Preostes feoh .ix. gylde. Diacones feoh .vi. gylde. Cleroces feoh .iii. gylde. Cyric-frið .ii. gylde. M[æþel] frið .ii. gylde.

The property of God and of the Church 12 fold A bishop’s 11 ” A priest’s 9 ” A deacon’s 6 ” A clerk’s 3 ” Church frith 2 ” [Moot] frith 2 ”

This clause is read by Thorpe and Schmid and Liebermann as enacting that thefts were to be paid for on this scale, so many multiples of the value of the goods stolen.[300]

Clause 2 enacts:--

[Sidenote: Mund-byrd of the King 50 scillings.]

Gif cyning his leode to him gehateð. ⁊ heom mon þær yfel gedo .ii. bote. ⁊ cyninge .l. scillinga.

If the King call his _leod_ to him and any one there do them evil, the bot is twofold and 50 scillings to the King.

Here are two distinct things. The bot is the payment to the person called to the King. While thus in attendance any injury is to be paid for twofold. The payment of fifty scillings to the King is the mund-byrd or payment for breach of his protection or peace.

Clause 3 is as follows:--

Gif cyning æt mannes ham drincæð ⁊ þær man lyswæs hwæt gedo twi bote gebete.

If the King drink at any one’s ‘ham’ and any one there does something wrong, then let him pay twofold bot.

That is, the presence of the King at a subject’s house is the same thing as the subject being in the King’s protection, and the bot for any wrong done to the subject, while the King is there, is doubled.

Clause 4 enacts:--

Gif frigman cyninge stele .ix. gylde forgylde.

If a freeman steal from the King, let him pay ninefold.

It seems at first sight hardly likely that the Archbishop should be compensated elevenfold and the King only ninefold, but as this is repeated in the statement of the Kentish law in the fragment ‘Of Grith and of Mund’ the text may be taken as correct.

Clause 5 enacts:--

Gif in cyninges túne man mannan ofslea .l. scill. gebete.

If a man slay another in the King’s tun, let him make bot with 50 scillings.

The bot here again is evidently the mund-byrd payable to the King for breach of his protection, _i.e._ fifty Kentish scillings.

Clause 6 enacts:--

Gif man frigne mannan ofsleahð cyninge .l. scill to drightin-beage.

If any one slay a freeman, 50 scillings to the King as _drihtin-beag_.

Here again the payment is to the King, but in this case, if the word is to be taken literally, it is not perhaps for breach of his peace, but for the _killing of his man_. He claims it as his ‘drihtin-beag’ or lord’s-ring. It is, to use the later Saxon phrase, the King’s manbot or value to him of his man killed.

[Sidenote: King’s smith and outrider pay a _medume_ wergeld.]

Up to this point the question of wergeld has not been mentioned at all. But in clause 7 is the following:[301]--

Gif cyninges ambiht-smið oþþe laad-rinc mannan ofslehð. meduman leodgelde forgelde.

If the King’s _ambiht-smith_ [official-smith] or _laad-rinc_ [outrider] slay a man, let him pay a _medume leodgeld_.

Liebermann would insert the word ‘man’ after ‘gif’ and so read this clause as stating the wergeld of the King’s smith and laadrinc-man when _slain_ to be a ‘medume wergeld’ (mittleres wergeld). But the clause is complete as it stands without the insertion of ‘man,’ and, read as it is, means that the smith and the outriders of the King, if they slay a man, are to pay a ‘medume leodgeld.’ But what does this mean? The word _medume_ was translated by Wilkins by ‘moderata.’ Thorpe read the phrase as meaning ‘a _half_ wergeld;’[302] Schmid as a ‘fit and proper’ one; and Liebermann would take it to refer to the wergeld of a person of middle rank or position. We must leave the true meaning for the present in doubt.

[Sidenote: Reason why not a full wergeld. Their dangerous work.]

Apart from the amount of the wergeld, if we would understand this passage we have surely first to consider for what reason these two royal officials should be singled out from all others and made liable to pay wergelds. The inference must be that in the performance of their duties they were peculiarly liable to injure others. The King’s smith in his smithy forging a weapon, and the outrider forcing a way for the King through a crowd, might very easily through carelessness or in the excitement of work cause the death of another. The necessity apparently had arisen to check their action by making them liable to pay a wergeld.[303] But the wergeld was not to be the usual one. It was to be a ‘medume leodgelde.’

For the present the exact meaning may be left open, but whether the true reading be a half-wergeld or not, the inference seems to be that a _full_ wergeld was not to be paid. Probably it had come to be recognised that a person engaged in a specially dangerous trade could not be held responsible to the same extent as in the case of an ordinary homicide.[304] These considerations are important, because the ‘medume’ wergeld will again claim notice and every hint is valuable when, as in the case of these laws, we have only hints to guide us.

In Clause 8, the King’s mund-byrd is declared to be fifty scillings; and the next two clauses relate to injuries done to the King’s servants.

[Sidenote: Bots for harm done to King’s servants.]

Gif man wið cyninges mægden-man geligeð .l. scillinga gebete.

10. If any one lie with a King’s maiden, let him pay a bot of 50 scillings.

Gif hio grindende þeowa sio .xxv. scillinga gebete. Sio þridde .xii. scillingas.

11. If she be a grinding slave, let him pay a bot of xxv scillings. The third [class] xii scillings.

Cyninges fed-esl .xx. scillinga forgelde.

12. Let the King’s _fed-esl_ be paid for with xx scillings.

These bots are evidently payable to the King for injuries done to him by abuse of his servants of different grades. They were not wergelds.

We have now done with these bots to the King, and the laws turn to consider injuries done and bots due to the _eorl_.

[Sidenote: Bots due to the eorl.]

Gif on eorles tune man mannan ofslæhð .xii. scill. gebete.

13. If a man slay another in an _eorl’s_ tun, let him make bot with xii scillings.

Gif wið eorles birele man geligeð .xii. scill. gebete.

14. If a man lie with an _eorl’s birele_, let him make bot with xii scillings.

And then from the bots due to the eorl the laws pass to those due to the ceorl. The following clauses show that under the Kentish laws the ceorl also had a mund-byrd.

[Sidenote: Bots due to the ceorl.]

Ceorles mund-byrd .vi. scillingas.

15. A ceorl’s mund-byrd vi scillings.

Gif wið ceorles birelan man geligeð .vi. scillingum gebete. aet þære oðere þeowan .l. scætta. aet þare þriddan .xxx. scætta.

16. If a man lie with a ceorl’s birele, let him make bot with vi scillings; if with the slave of the second class l scætts; if with one of the third class xxx scætts.

Thus we get a scale of mund-byrds or penalties due for breach of the peace or protection of the King, the eorl, and the ceorl:--

[Sidenote: Mund-byrd of King, eorl, and ceorl.]

King’s mund-byrd 50 scillings Eorl’s ” 12 ” Ceorl’s ” 6 ”

but so far we have learned nothing about the amount of their wergelds.

Clause 17 fixes the bot for inroad into a man’s ‘tun’ at six scillings for the first person entering, three for the next, and one for the rest.

[Sidenote: Lending a weapon in a brawl.]

Then follows an interesting set of clauses, which I think must be read together, as all referring to the case of what might happen in a brawl in which one man lends a weapon to another.

Gif man mannan wæpnum bebyreþ ðær ceas weorð ⁊ man nænig yfel ne gedeþ .vi. scillingum gebete.

18. If a man furnishes weapons to another _where there is strife_, and the man does no harm, let him make bot with vi scillings.

Gif weg reaf sy gedon .vi. scillingum gebete.

19. If _weg-reaf_ [street robbery] be done, let him make bot with vi scillings.

Gif man þone man ofslæhð .xx. scillingum gebete.

20. If any one slay _that_ man [_i.e._ to whom he lent the weapons], let him [the lender] make bot with xx scillings.

Gif man mannan ofslæhð medume leod-gild .c. scillinga gebete.

21. If a man slay another, let him [the lender] make bot with a medume leod-geld of c scillings.

Gif man mannan ofslæhð æt openum græfe .xx. scillinga forgelde ⁊ in .xl. nihta ealne leod forgelde.

22. If a man slay another, let him at the open grave[305] pay xx scillings and in 40 nights pay a full[306] leod.

Gif bana of lande gewiteþ þa magas healfne leod forgelden.

23. If the slayer depart from the land, let his kindred pay a half leod.

These clauses taken together and followed carefully, I think, become intelligible.

[Sidenote: How treated in Alfred’s and in Ine’s laws.]

A man lends weapons to another who is engaged in a brawl, and the question arises how far he is to be responsible for what happens in the brawl. In the case dealt with in these clauses two things are involved--the lending of the weapons and the joining thereby in the fray. In the later laws there are provisions for both points. Under King Alfred’s laws (s. 19) the man who lends his weapon to another who kills some one therewith has to pay at least one third of the wergeld unless he can clear himself from evil intention.

Under Ine’s laws (s. 34) a man who joins in a fray in which someone is killed, even if he can clear himself from the slaying, has to pay as bot (_gebete_) one fourth of the wergeld of the slain person whether twy-hynde or ‘dearer born.’ Under Alfred (29 to 31) the actual slayer has to pay the wergeld, and in addition each of the others in the fray has to pay as ‘hloð-bote’ 30 scillings for a twy-hynde man, 60 for a six-hynde, and 120 for a twelve-hynde man.

These later precedents may materially help us in the understanding of the Kentish clauses.

Clauses 18 and 19 make the lender of the weapon pay a bot of six scillings though no evil be done or only street robbery occur.

Clause 20 provides for the case in which the man to whom he lent the weapon was slain, and in this case the bot is raised to twenty scillings.

[Sidenote: The lender pays a _medume_ wergeld for person slain.]

Clause 21 seems to deal with the case of some one else being slain, and makes the lender liable to pay a bot of a ‘medume leod-gild’ of 100 scillings for mixing in the fray. It would be natural that the bot should be greater if another was slain than if the man to whom he lent the weapons had been slain. And if the later precedents are to guide us, the bot of a ‘medume wergeld’ should not in amount equal the whole wergeld but only a proportion of the wergeld. If the bot of 100 scillings might be considered as equal to a _half_-wergeld we should gain a clue to what the whole wergeld might be. And this would be a tempting inference. But we are not, it seems, as yet warranted in making it. We must therefore at present content ourselves with the conclusion that the ‘medume wergeld’ cannot mean a whole wergeld, otherwise the lender of the weapon would pay as _bot_ as much as the wergeld would be if he had killed the man himself.

Clause 22 makes 20 scillings payable at the open grave and the whole leod in forty nights. It refers apparently to the actual slayer’s liability to pay the whole wergeld (_ealne leod_); and finally clause 23 states that if the slayer depart from the land his kindred shall pay _half_ the wergeld of the slain person. We are not told to whom the bot of the ‘medume wergeld’ of 100 scillings was to be paid, nor whether it was to be a part of the wergeld or additional to the ‘ealne leod’ paid by the actual slayer. The later laws, as we have seen, afford precedents for both alternatives.

[Sidenote: Kindred liable for half the wergeld and slayer for the other half.]

Another point of interest arises from the last clause. In the absence of the slayer his kindred had to pay only a half wergeld (_healfne leod_). Does this justify the inference that in all cases of wergelds the liability of the kindred was confined to one half? It will be remembered that in the so-called ‘Canones Wallici’ (_supra_, p. 109), if the slayer had fled, the _parentes_ of the slayer had fifteen days allowed for their payment of one half or flight from the country. And only when they had paid their share could the slayer return and make himself safe by paying the other half--the ‘medium quod restat.’ It seems not unlikely that in the Kentish case also ecclesiastical influence had limited the liability of the kindred to the half-wergeld.

Clauses 25 and 26 are important, and we shall have to recur to them.

[Sidenote: The three grades of læts.]

Gif man ceorlæs hlaf-ætan ofslæhð .vi. scillingum gebete.

25. If any one slay a ceorl’s hlafæta, let him make _bot_ with vi scillings.

Gif læt ofslæhð þone selestan .lxxx. scill forgelde. Gif þane oðerne ofslæhð .lx. scillingum forgelde. þane þriddan .xl. scillingum forgelden.

26. If [any one] slay a _læt_ of the best class, let him pay lxxx scillings; of one of the second, let him pay lx scillings; of the third, let him pay xl scillings.

To these three grades of læts we shall have to return when we sum up the evidence on the division of classes.

[Sidenote: Edor-breach.]

Next follow three clauses upon edor-breach. The first relates to the breach by a freeman of the enclosure or precinct presumably of a freeman, the penalty being the same as the ceorl’s _mund_. The second imposes a threefold bot upon theft from within the precinct. And the third refers to a freeman’s trespass over the edor or fence.

Gif friman edor-brecðe gedeð vi scillingum gebete.

27. If a freeman commit edor-breach, let him make bot with vi scillings.

Gif man inne feoh genimeð se man iii gelde gebete.

28. If any one take property [? cattle] from within, let him pay a threefold bot.

Gif fri-man edor gegangeð iv scillingum gebete.

29. If a freeman trespass over a fence, let him make bot with iv scillings.

After these clauses about _edor-breach_ is the following:

Gif man mannan ofslea agene scætte. ⁊ unfacne feo gehwilce gelde.

30. If a man slay another, let him pay with his own money (scætte) and with any sound _feo_ [cattle].

Gif friman wið fries mannes wif geligeð his wer-gelde abicge ⁊ oðer wif his agenum scætte begete. ⁊ þæm oðrum æt þam gebrenge.

31. If a freeman lie with a freeman’s wife, let him pay his wergeld, and another wife obtain with his own scætte and bring her to the other.

[Sidenote: Bots for injuries. For eye, hand, or foot 50 scillings.]

Then follow chapters relating chiefly to injuries done and wounds inflicted, and the bots payable to the person injured for the same. It is not needful to mention more of these than the most important one, viz. that for the destruction of an eye, hand, or foot. The bots for all these in most other laws were alike. In Ethelbert’s Laws the bot for each of the three is fifty scillings, which happens to be the same as the mund-byrd of the King.

After the clauses for injuries there are several relating to women.

[Sidenote: Injuries to women.]

Gif fri wif locbore les wæs hwæt gedeþ xxx scll gebete.

73. If a lock-bearing free wife does wrong, xxx scillings bot.

Mægþbot sy swa friges mannes.

74. The maiden-bot is like a freeman’s.

Mund þare betstan widuwan eorlcundre l scillinga gebete. Ðare oþre xx scll, ðare þriddan xii scll. þare feorðan vi scll.

75. The mund of the best eorlcund widow is a bot of l scillings. Of the second rank xx scillings, of the third xii scillings, of the fourth vi scillings.

Gif man widuwan unagne genimeþ, ii gelde seo mund sy.

76. If a man carry off a widow not in his mund, her mund shall be twofold.

The clause relating to the mund of the four grades of apparently eorlcund (?) widows does not help us much to an understanding of what the grades of Kentish society may have been. But it emphasises a remarkable trait of these laws of Ethelbert. Every class is divided in these laws into grades. The clergy are divided into grades from bishops to clerks. The female servants of the King’s household are divided into three classes, and so are the servants of the ceorl’s household. The læts are divided into three classes. And now the widows, whether all eorlcund or not, are divided into four classes for the purpose of their mund. The significance of these divisions will be apparent hereafter. In the meantime the mund is probably the amount to be paid by a second husband to the parents or kindred of the widow.

Passing from the mund of the widow, the following clauses throw some light upon the position of the wife under Kentish custom.

[Sidenote: Position of a wife under Kentish custom.]

Gif mon mægþ gebigeð, ceapi geceapod sy gif hit unfacne is. Gif it þonne facne is ef þær æt ham gebringe ⁊ him man his scæt agefe.

77. If any one buy a maid, let the purchase stand if without guile. But if there be guile, let him bring her home again and let them give him his money back.

Gif hio cwic bearn gebyreþ, healfne scæt age gif ceorl ær swylteþ.

78. If she bears a living child, let her have half the property if the husband die first.

Gif mid bearnum bugan wille healfne scæt age.

79. If she wills to go away with her children, let her have half the property.

Gif ceorl agan wile swa an bearn.

80. If the husband wills to have [them], [let her have] as one child.

Gif hio bearn ne gebyreþ fæderingmagas fioh agan ⁊ morgengyfe.

81. If she bear no child, let [her] paternal kindred have the property and morgengift.

It is obvious from these clauses that under Kentish custom the position of the wife was very much the same as under Cymric and continental German custom. The marriage was a fair contract between the two kindreds.

The next clause enjoins a payment of fifty shillings to the ‘owner’ of a maiden if she be carried off by force.

[Sidenote: The Kentish esne.]

Lastly there are the following clauses relating to the position of the esne under Kentish custom. The esne is considered to be a ‘servus’ working for hire rather than a theow.

Gif man mid esnes cwynan geligeþ be cwicum ceorle ii gebete.

85. If a man lies with an esne’s wife, the husband alive, double bot.

Gif esne oþerne ofslea unsynnigne, ealne weorðe forgelde.

86. If one esne kills another innocently, let the full worth be paid for.

Gif esnes eage ⁊ foot of weorðeþ aslagen ealne weorðe hine forgelde.

87. If an esne’s eye and foot are struck out or off, let the full worth be paid for it.

Gif man mannes esne gebindeþ vi scll gebete.

88. If a man bind a man’s esne, vi scillings bot.

There is nothing in these clauses, I think, to show that the bot was payable to any one but the owner of the esne.

What the ‘full worth’ of the esne was we are not told.

IV. THE LAWS OF HLOTHÆRE AND EADRIC, A.D. 685-6.

Between the date of the Laws of Ethelbert and those of other Kentish kings which have been preserved nearly a century had intervened. So that these later laws of Kent are nearly contemporary with King Ine’s Dooms of Wessex.

[Sidenote: Eorlcund and ceorlisc classes.]

As in Ethelbert’s laws, the main division of classes of freemen seems still to have been that between eorlcund and ceorlisc. But we get further valuable information.

The Laws of Hlothære and Eadric open with clauses which seem to fix the wergeld of the eorl at three times that of the ordinary freeman.

[Sidenote: The owner’s liability for an esne’s homicides.]

They deal with the liability of an owner of an _esne_[307] for his servant’s homicides.

[Sidenote: If an esne slay an eorl.]

Gif mannes esne eorlcundne mannan ofslæhð. þane þe sio þreom hundum scill gylde se agend þone banan agefe ⁊ do þær þrio manwyrð to.

1. If any one’s esne slay an _eorlcund_ man, one that is paid for with three hundred scillings, let the owner give up the slayer, and add _three manwyrths_ thereto.

Gif se bana oðbyrste feorðe manwyrð he to-gedo ⁊ hine gecænne mid godum æwdum ꝥ he þane banan begeten ne mihte.

2. If the slayer escape, let him add a fourth _manwyrth_ and let him prove with good compurgators that he could not catch the slayer.

The next two clauses are as follows:--

[Sidenote: If he slay a freeman.]

Gif mannes esne frigne mannan ofslæhð þane þe sie hund scillinga gelde se agend þone banan agefe ⁊ oþer manwyrð þær to.

3. If anyone’s esne slay a freeman, one that is paid for with 100 scillings, let the owner give up the slayer and a second manwyrth thereto.

Gif bana oðbyrste, twam manwyrðum hine man forgelde ⁊ hine gecænne mid godum æwdum ꝥ he þane banan begeten ne mihte.

4. If the slayer escape, let [the owner] pay for him with two manwyrths and let him prove with good compurgators that he could not catch the slayer.

This reading of these clauses is not that of Thorpe or of Schmid, but that approved by the best authorities.[308]

[Sidenote: Were the wergelds 300 and 100, or are they half-wergelds?]

Following this reading as philologically the most correct one, the inference at first sight might be that under Kentish law the wergeld of the eorlcundman was 300 Kentish scillings and that of the freeman 100 scillings.

But there may be reason to doubt the correctness of such an inference.

[Sidenote: The clauses limit and lessen the owner’s liability.]

For the present we may leave the question of the amount of the wergelds to consider the meaning of the clauses in their main intention. And this seems to be clear. Henceforth the owner of an esne was not to be accountable for the wergeld of the person slain or any part of it further than that if an eorlcundman payable for with 300 scillings be slain he must hand over the esne and _three_ times his manworth in addition; and in the case of the freeman payable for with 100 scillings he must hand over the esne and add _one_ manworth in addition. That is to say, the esne was in both cases to be handed over and a manworth for each hundred scillings of the amount at which the person slain is paid for.

Now, I think, we must conclude that these clauses were intended to make an innovation upon ancient custom rather than to confirm it. And therefore it may be well to compare with them the parallel evidence of the laws of other tribes, as to the responsibility of an owner for his slave’s homicides.

[Sidenote: Under tribal custom at first complete.]

Under the Welsh Laws (ii. p. 105) the liability of the owner of a slave for his homicides was apparently complete.

If a bondman commit homicide of whatever kind, it is right for the lord of the bondman to pay for the deed of his bondman as for a murderer, for he is a murderer.

And this probably must be taken as the general rule of tribal custom in its early stages.

In the laws of the Saxons and of the Anglii and Werini the ancient German tribal custom was still preserved. The owner of an animal or a slave was liable for any injury done by either, very much as if it had been done by himself (‘Lex Sax.’ xii. Ang. and Wer. 16 and 52).

[Sidenote: Then made a half-wergeld only, and the slave to be handed over for the other half.]

But it would seem that Roman and Christian feeling very early suggested that this was hard upon the innocent owner. Hence in some of the laws the compromise was made that the owner should pay only a _half_-wergeld and hand over the offending animal or slave instead of the other half.

That this innovation was not altogether acceptable to tribal feeling is shown by clauses in the ‘Pactus III.’ of the Alamannic laws. The whole wergeld was to be paid by the owner if his horse, ox, or pig killed a man (s. 18). But an exception was made in the case of the dog. If a man’s dog killed any one, a _half_-wergeld (medium werigeldum) was to be paid, and if the whole wergeld was demanded, all the doors but one of the house of the person making the demand were to be closed and the dog was to be hung up nine feet from the only one left open for ingress or egress, and there it must remain till it fell from putrefaction. If it was removed or any other door was used, the wergeld was to be returned (s. 17).

Grimm (‘D. R.’ p. 665) has pointed out that in the _Ostgotalaga_ (Drap. 13, 2) a similar archaic practice is described when a _slave_ had killed a man. The _owner_ of the slave under this law ought to pay the whole wergeld, and if he did not do so the _slave_ was to be hung up at _his_ (the owner’s) house door till the body putrefied and fell. Thus the same archaic method of punishing the delinquent was retained in both cases. But the significant point is that so long as the whole wergeld was due from the owner it was at the owner’s door that the body of the slayer was to be hung up, while when the _half_-wergeld only was to be paid, the dog was to be hung up at the door of the person who improperly demanded the whole wergeld. Thus, as in so many other cases, the twelfth-century laws of the North preserved the earlier custom of the payment of the whole wergeld, while the Alamanni, after migration into contact with Roman and Christian civilisation, in their laws of the seventh century modified the custom, at the same time retaining the archaic method of forcing compliance with the modification. It must be remembered that every change which relieved the innocent owner from liability, wholly or in part, robbed the kindred of the person slain of the whole or the part of the wergeld.

The compromise of payment of the half-wergeld and the handing over of the offending animal or slave was not confined to the Alamannic laws.

In the Ripuarian Law xlvi. the animal which had killed a man was to be handed over and received ‘in medietatem wirigildi’ and the owner was to pay the other half.

[Sidenote: So in Codex I. of Lex Salica, but afterwards owner released from the half-wergeld.]

In the Lex Salica the same rule was at first applied to the case of homicide by a slave or læt. A half-wergeld was to be paid and the slave or læt handed over for the other half.[309] This was the rule according to the Codex I. But in the later Codices, VII. to X., and in the ‘Lex Emendata,’ the lord, if innocent, was allowed to get off altogether from the half-wergeld and had only to give up the slave or the læt. This further innovation seems to have been connected with the Edict of Chilperic (_circ._ A.D. 574) and thus probably represented the result of ecclesiastical influence at very nearly the date of the earliest Kentish laws.

[Sidenote: In the Canons of sixth century the slave was to be given up and another besides.]

We have only to recur to the Canons of the Celtic Church of Brittany and South Wales of the sixth and seventh centuries, considered in the earlier part of this volume, to recognise the hand of the Church in these innovations upon earlier tribal custom. They extended to Celtic as well as to German districts. In Canon 5 of the so-called ‘Canones Wallici’ the rule was laid down that ‘if any master should permit his slave to carry arms, and the slave killed a freeman, the owner must hand over the slave and another besides’ (_supra_, p. 108).

The half-wergeld here is omitted altogether, and, as in the case of the Kentish freeman, two slaves are to be given up instead of one.

[Sidenote: In the Burgundian Law slave to be given up and the owner to be free.]

These Canons were nearly contemporary with the later Kentish laws, and the same stage of innovation seems to have been reached in both. A still further and final stage had been reached in the Burgundian Law already quoted (_supra_, p. 124) in which in the case of homicide by a slave, unknown to his master, the slave was to be delivered up to death and the master was to be free from liability. The _parentes_ of the slain person were to get nothing, not even the slave, ‘because, as we enact that the guilty shall be extirpated, so we cannot allow the innocent to suffer wrong.’ The whole process of change had taken place in the Burgundian district by the sixth century. But it would seem that in Kent the middle stage only had been reached at the date of the laws of Hlothære and Eadric.

Evidence that the further stage had at last been reached in Anglo-Saxon law is perhaps to be found in the nearly contemporary law of Ine (s. 74) which enacts that if a _theow-wealh_ slay an Englishman, the owner shall deliver him up to the lord and the kindred or give sixty scillings for his life. Here no further manworths are required. But possibly the peculiar position of the _theow-wealh_ may have something to do with it, so that we ought not perhaps to assume as certain that the clause represented a still further general innovation upon tribal custom beyond that described in the Kentish clauses.

[Sidenote: Kentish clauses meant to modify the previous rule: which may have been the half-wergeld of 300 and 100 scillings.]

Returning to the Kentish clauses and assuming that their direct intention was to modify previous custom, we are now in a position fairly to judge what the _previous_ rule may have been.

Reasoning from the analogy of other laws, it seems most likely to have been to make the owner pay a half-wergeld of the person slain and hand over the esne for the other half--the stage of custom reached in the Ripuarian Laws and Salic Laws of Codex I.

And if this were in fact the former custom previous to the enactment in these clauses, then without departing from the correct literal reading of the text it may be that the words in the parenthesis in each clause may refer, not to the eorlcundman’s or the freeman’s wergild--the word ‘_leod_-geldi’ is not used--but to the amount hitherto payable in the particular case of a man slain by an esne. The 300 and 100 scillings may be the _half_-wergeld hitherto payable, instead of which thenceforth the owner of the esne is to pay three manworths or one manworth in addition to handing over the esne.

If previous to the innovation the eorlcundman had been paid for in such a case with three hundred shillings and the freeman with one hundred, the words in their strictly correct literal meaning might perhaps rightly be read thus:--

If any one’s esne slay an eorlcundman, one who _is_ [now] paid for at three hundred scillings, let the owner [in future] give up the slayer and add _three_ manworths [of the esne] thereto.

If anyone’s esne slay a freeman, one who _is_ [now] paid for at _one_ hundred scillings, let the owner [in future] give up the slayer and add one manworth [of the esne] thereto.

This reading of the clauses, putting emphasis upon what is _now_ the gild (þane ꝥ sie)--the _three_ and the _one_ hundred scillings--in contrast with what the owner has in future to do, _i.e._ pay _three_ manworths and _one_ manworth instead of the _three_ hundred and _one_ hundred scillings in addition to the handing over of the esne--seems to me more than any other rendering to account for the insertion of the parenthesis stating the amounts payable for the eorlcundman and freeman. If the word _leod-gylde_ had been used it might have been different. But I am informed on the best authority that the words _gylde_ and _gelde_ in the two clauses are not substantives but used in an adjectival sense, and in this case they would apply to a half-wergeld payable as correctly as to a whole one.

[Sidenote: Was 100 scillings the half-wergeld and so the medume wergeld of King Ethelbert’s laws?]

At the same time the mention of 100 scillings, if the payment be a _half_-wergeld, may help to an understanding of the _medume_ leodgeld of 100 scillings mentioned in Ethelbert’s Laws. It suggests that the _medume_ wergeld was a modified or middle one which, like the _medium_ werigeldum and _medium_ precium of the mediæval Latin of the Alamannic and other laws, had come to mean a _half_ one. Perhaps, after all, if we recognise clerical influence in the framing and modification of the Kentish laws, the translation of the Latin ‘_medium werigeldum_’ by the Anglo-Saxon ‘_medume leodgeld_’ is not very unnatural.

Before we leave the laws of Hlothære and Eadric there are one or two further clauses worth notice.

[Sidenote: System of oath-helpers.]

Clause 5 reminds us that, though scarcely mentioned in these laws, the system of compurgation was in force. A freeman charged with a crime has to clear himself by the oaths of a number of ‘free æwda-men.’

Clause 6 makes mention of the protection of a woman by her kindred:--

[Sidenote: Position of the wife.]

Gif ceorl acwyle be libbendum wife ⁊ bearne riht is ꝥ hit ꝥ bearn medder folgige ⁊ him mon an his fædering-magum wilsumne berigean geselle his feoh to healdenne oþþæt he .x. wintra sie.

6. If a husband (ceorl) die wife and child yet living, it is right that the child follow the mother: and let that sufficient guardian be given to him [the child] from among his paternal kinsmen to keep his property [cattle?] till he be ten winters old.

These clauses, unimportant perhaps in themselves, are useful as showing that behind the silence of the laws tribal custom still lingered on, however seldom and slightly it might be brought into evidence as fresh circumstances might suggest new clauses.

[Sidenote: Mund-byrds unchanged.]

There are also some clauses which are useful as showing the continuance of the mund-byrds of king and ceorl of King Ethelbert’s Laws, unchanged in amount, a century later.

By s. 11, if a man uses abusive words to another in any one’s ‘flet,’ ‘let him pay one scilling to him who owns the “flet” and six scillings to him to whom he said the words and twelve scillings to the King.’ So also in s. 12, one scilling is to be paid to the owner of the ‘flet,’ six scillings to the person wronged, and twelve scillings to the king. The six scillings to the person insulted or wronged is the _mund_ of the freeman or ceorl. Lastly, in s. 13 in case of a slaying in a drinking bout:--

Gif man wæpn abregde þær mæn drincen ⁊ þær man nan yfel ne deð scilling þan þe ꝥ flet age ⁊ cyninge xii scill.

If a man draw a weapon where men are drinking and no harm be done, then a scilling to him who owns the flet and xii scillings to the King.

Gif ꝥ flet geblodgad wyrðe forgylde þem mæn his mund-byrd ⁊ cyninge l. scill.

If the flet be stained with blood, let him pay to the man [who owns the flet] his mund-byrd and 50 scillings to the King.

[Sidenote: Mund-byrd of the King still 50 scillings and of the ceorl 6.]

Thus we have again the mund-byrds of King Ethelbert’s Laws:--

Of the King 50 scillings. Of the ceorl 6 scillings.

The crime of killing another in a drinking bout is a breach of the _mund_ of the owner of the ‘flet’ as well as a breach of the peace of the King.

V. THE LAWS OF KING WIHTRÆD, A.D. 690-696.

One more chance remains for further information regarding Kentish wergelds, viz. in the ‘Laws of King Wihtræd,’ who became King of the Kentish men about A.D. 690 and, according to Bede, died A.D. 725. A century had passed since the Laws of Ethelbert were enacted, in the time of St. Augustine. Brihtwald was now Archbishop of Canterbury, and at an assembly of Church and people ‘the great men decreed, with the suffrage of all, these dooms, and added them to the lawful customs of the Kentish men.’ These laws are mainly ecclesiastical both in their origin and subject.

[Sidenote: Mund-byrd of King and Church both 50 scillings, and so no change in the Kentish currency.]

In the first two clauses the Church was declared to be ‘free from gafols,’ and the mund-byrd of the Church was declared to be the same as the King’s, viz. fifty scillings--as in Ethelbert’s Laws. There is therefore no marked change in the Kentish currency, though by this time it must have been almost entirely silver so far as any Kentish coinage was concerned.

Clause 5 introduces us for the first time in the Kentish laws to the distinction between the _gesithcund_ and _ceorlisc_ classes.

Gif þæs geweorðe gesiðcundne mannan ofer þis gemot ꝥ he unriht hæmed genime ofer cingæs bebod ⁊ biscopes ⁊ boca dom se ꝥ gebete his dryhtne .c. scill. an eald reht. Gif hit ceorlisc man sie gebete .l. scill.…

When it happens to a gesithcundman after this gemot that he enters into unlawful marriage against the command of the King and the bishop and the book’s doom, let him make bot for it to his lord with 100 scillings according to ancient law. If he be a _ceorlisc_ man, let him make bot with 50 scillings.…

It would not do to conclude from this single allusion to gesithcund and ceorlisc men that the Kentish division of classes--eorlisc and ceorlisc--had given way before the Wessex division of classes--gesithcund and ceorlisc.

There had been no interval between this and the last set of Kentish laws long enough to have made likely any radical change in social conditions, and as the ‘ancient law’ alluded to was probably ecclesiastical and not especially Kentish, either in its origin or its terms, it would not be wise to build anything upon the use of the word ‘gesithcund’ beyond recognising the natural tendency of neighbouring peoples under the same ecclesiastical influence to approximate in phraseology especially in regard to matters of general ecclesiastical interest.

Clauses which follow regulating the penalties for work on Sundays, or neglect of baptism, or a ceorl’s making offerings to devils without his wife’s knowledge, or a man’s giving flesh meat to his family on fast days, do not interest us in this inquiry further than as revealing lingering traces of paganism and the ecclesiastical character of these laws of Wihtræd.

There are, however, a few clauses which incidentally come within the lines of our inquiry.

[Sidenote: The position of the freedman under Kentish custom.]

Clause 8 is especially interesting as showing that when freedom was given by a lord to his man and he became folkfree, still, even though he left the district, his _inheritance_, his _wergeld_, and the _mund_ of his family remained with the freedom-giver.

Gif man his mæn an wiofode freols gefe se sie folc-fry. freolsgefa age his erfe ænde wer-geld ⁊ munde þare hina sie ofer mearce þær he wille.

If any one give freedom to his man at the altar, let him be folkfree; let the freedom-giver keep the heritage and wergeld and the _mund_ of his family, be he over the march wherever he will.

[Sidenote: His wergeld goes to his lord.]

Here tribal custom asserts itself. The freedman, though freed at the _altar_, is to be _folkfree_, and yet, although folkfree and able to go wherever he will, he cannot _inherit_, because he is nobody’s heir. He had no free parents from whom to inherit. His lord inherited what his unfree man might leave behind him. The freedman’s wergeld if he were slain still went to his lord, for he had no free kindred to claim it. His family remained in the lord’s _mund_ unless they also had been set free.

These points were doubtless all incident to the position of a newly made freedman under Kentish custom, and this enactment was probably needful only to make it clear that freedom given _at the altar_, whatever churchmen might think, was not to modify the customary rules incident to freedom-giving. The evidence of the clause is, however, valuable because for one moment it accidentally lifts the veil and shows that Kentish tribal custom was in these matters much the same as we have found tribal custom elsewhere, and it is particularly valuable as direct evidence that there was a class of freedmen under Kentish custom as everywhere else.

There are also the following clauses on oaths.

[Sidenote: Clauses on oaths of different persons.]

Biscopes word ⁊ cyninges sie unlægne buton æðe.

16. A bishop’s and a King’s word is unimpeachable without an oath.

Mynstres aldor hine cænne in preostes canne.

17. A ‘Minster’s ealdor’ clears himself in the same way as a priest.

Preost hine clænsie sylfæs soðe in his halgum hrægle ætforan wiofode þus cweðende ‘Ueritatem dico in Xp̄o, non mentior.’ Swylce diacon hine clænsie.

18. A priest clears himself by his own declaration in his holy garments before the altar, saying ‘I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie.’ And so also does the deacon.

Cliroc feowra sum hine clænsie his heafod-gemacene ⁊ ane his hand on wiofode oðre ætstanden að abycgan.

19. A cleric shall clear himself as one of four of his like; with one hand on the altar, the others standing by and accompanying the oath.

Gest hine clænsie sylfes aðe on wiofode swylce cyninges þeng.

20. A stranger (gest) shall clear himself by his own oath at the altar, and in the same manner as a ‘King’s thane.’

Ceorlisc man hine feowra sum his heafod-gemacene on weofode ⁊ þissa ealra að sie unlegnæ.…

21. A ceorlisc man shall clear himself with four of his like at the altar, and the oath of all these shall be unimpeachable.…

[Sidenote: Under clerical influence the single oath of the stranger to be taken as good.]

These statements regarding oaths, like other laws of Wihtræd, betray their ecclesiastical origin, and following directly after the imposition of penalties for what may be called ecclesiastical sins, very difficult of proof, seem to have been inserted with special reference to them. They are interesting, however, as reminding us again that the system of oath-helpers was not absent from Kentish custom.

Section 20 of this clause is also interesting, which places the _stranger_ (gest)--may we not say the ‘King’s guest’?--in the same position as the ‘King’s thane’ as to the validity of his single oath. Both seem to be specially under the King’s protection: in the case of the King’s thane, on account of his official or military position; in the case of the stranger, probably because of the absence of his kindred. The King being in the place of kin to the stranger, his single oath is accepted.

These laws end with clauses referring to theft more or less closely resembling those so prominent in King Ine’s Dooms.

[Sidenote: Clauses as to theft like those in Ine’s laws.]

They state that a thief slain as a thief was to be without wergeld. If a freeman were caught in the act of thieving, the King might either kill him, or sell him over sea, or release him on payment of his wergeld. He who should seize and hold him was to be entitled to the half-wergeld, or if he were put to death to seventy scillings. A man coming from far or a foreigner, when off the public way, who should neither call aloud nor blow a horn, was to be taken to be a thief, and put to death or redeemed by a wergeld.

The last clause resembles Ine s. 20 so closely as to suggest a common origin.

(Wihtræd, 28)

Gif feorran cumen man oþþe fræmde buton wege gange ⁊ he þonne nawðer ne hryme ne he horn blawe for ðeof he bid to profianne oþþe to sleanne oþþe to alysenne.

(Ine, 20)

Gif feor cuman man oððe fremde buton wege geond wudu gonge ⁊ ne hryme ne horn blawe for ðeof he bid to profianne oððe to sleanne oððe to alysanne.

The close resemblance between these clauses confirms the suggestion that the expression ‘gesithcund’ in the Kentish laws of Wihtræd may have been borrowed from Wessex. Nowhere else than in these contemporary laws of Ine and Wihtræd does the term gesithcund appear, except in the fragments of Mercian law, which may thus belong to the same period.

VI. THE DIVISION OF CLASSES UNDER KENTISH CUSTOM.

We have now examined the Kentish laws especially regarding the amount of the wergelds and mund-byrds. Although we may not have arrived at absolute certainty, yet some light may have been thrown upon the important matter of the division of classes.

[Sidenote: Mund-byrds of King, eorl, and ceorl.]

So far as the amounts of the wergeld are concerned, the contrast was between the eorl and the freeman, the wergeld of the eorl being three times that of the freeman. But as regards the mund-byrd the contrast was between eorl and ceorl. The mund-byrds were:--

King 50 Kentish scillings Eorl 12 ” Ceorl 6 ”

There must evidently be either identity of meaning or much overlapping in the terms freeman and ceorl. Otherwise the ceorl would be without a wergeld and the freeman without a mund-byrd.

And yet, on the other hand, there was probably some reason why the particular words used were chosen in the several clauses, and to a certain extent it may not be far to seek.

[Sidenote: The ceorl was a man with a household and flet and so had a mund-byrd.]

So far as the word _ceorl_ had a special sense, it meant the married man,[310] the husband with a homestead and household, like the North-country husbandman with his husbandland. In this special sense every ceorl may have been a freeman, but every freeman may not have been a ceorl. Hence in the clauses as regards mund-byrd the contrast is between the eorl and the ceorl. Both were men with homesteads and households. Unless they had persons under their ‘mund’ they could not have had corresponding mund-byrds. The freeman who did not happen to be a man with a homestead and household could have no mund-byrd, because he had no precinct within which his peace could be broken, and no household under his protection. But he could have a wergeld.

So, again, in the clauses quoted relating to injuries done to servants in the Laws of Ethelbert:--

14. If a man lie with an eorl’s birele, let him make bot with xii scillings.

16. If a man lie with a ceorl’s birele, let him make bot with vi scillings. If with a theow of the second class, l sceatts; if with one of the third class xxx sceatts.

25. If any one slay a ceorl’s hlafæta, let him pay bot with vi scillings.

The ceorl in this contrast is again a husbandman with a homestead and household and with bireles and theows and hlafætas under his roof or in his ‘ham.’ Wherever in the Kentish laws the word ‘ceorl’ is used in any other sense, I think the meaning is confined to that of the married man--the husband, as in the phrase ‘husband and wife.’

So regarded, the division for purposes of mund-byrd into eorlisc and ceorlisc classes was natural, and so also, for purposes of wergeld, was the distinction between eorl and freeman. As regards the wergeld, we may consider the terms ceorl and freeman as practically interchangeable, inasmuch as every ceorl was certainly a freeman, and the unmarried freeman was probably a cadet or member of the household of some eorlisc or ceorlisc man.

* * * * *

Continental society included everywhere, as we have seen, such classes as the Roman liti and liberti composed of strangers and freedmen who had not so far risen in the social scale as to have fully recognised rights of inheritance and whose wergeld never was of the same amount as that of the full freeman. It is in connection with such classes that the tribal distinction of blood came in. If for the full freeman we were to substitute the word _tribesman_, with all the background of hyndens of kinsmen to fight and to swear for him involved in the term, then from the same point of view we must expect to find in Kent, as everywhere else, strangers in blood below the tribesmen, like the aillts and alltuds and taeogs of the Cymric Codes, the fuidhirs of the Brehon Laws, if not the liberti and liti of the Gallo-Romans, or, perhaps still more nearly to the point, the leysing classes of the Norse Laws.

[Sidenote: The Kentish freedman and læt resembled the Norse leysing.]

We have already found incidental mention of the Kentish freedman. He cannot after enfranchisement have been classed as an esne or a theow. There would seem to be no other class mentioned to which he could belong, unless it might be that of the læts of Ethelbert’s Laws.

It is worth while, therefore, to recur to the single clause in Ethelbert’s Laws already quoted respecting the læts and to examine it more closely. Within the compass of its few words there may perhaps be found evidence connecting the status of the Kentish læt with what we have learned of the status and conditions of the Norse leysing.

26. If a man slay a læt of the best class, let him pay 80 scillings; if one of the second class, let him pay 60 scillings; of the third, let him pay 40 scillings.

The clause does not mention to whom the payments are to be made, whether to the læt himself or, as in the case of the freedman, to his late owner or lord. But the payments are not called leodgelds as are the wergelds of freemen.

[Sidenote: Three classes in both cases.]

Looking to the payments themselves they are graduated for three classes of læts. There were also, under Norse custom, three classes of leysings gradually growing by successive steps towards a higher grade of freedom as kindreds grew up around them and became more and more nearly perfect till at last the ninth generation from the first freedman became fully free. Why may not the three grades of Kentish læts have been doing the same?

Let us compare the amounts of the payments for the slaying of the three classes of Kentish læts with those for the three classes of Norse leysings.

We have seen over and over again that the Kentish scilling regarded as twenty sceatts was an ore or a Roman ounce of silver. Therefore the Kentish payments, stated in ounces of silver, were as follows:--

Best class of læt 80 ounces of silver Second class 60 ” ” Third class 40 ” ”

The Norse ore was also in wheat-grains a Roman ounce of silver. The wergelds of the three classes of leysings in the Norse laws were as under:--

Frialsgiafi or newly made freedman 40 ores of silver Leysing after making ‘freedom ale’ 60 ” ” Leysinjia-son or highest rank of } leysing whose great-grandfather } 80 ” ” was a leysing[311] }

[Sidenote: And the wergelds similar.]

So that the wergelds of the three classes of Kentish læts corresponded exactly in amount with those of the three classes of Norse leysings, when reckoned both in silver.

We may further compare these payments for the Kentish læts with those for the freedman of the nearly contemporary Bavarian laws. They are stated in gold solidi of three tremisses, and the Kentish solidus was of only two tremisses. We have seen that the Bavarian freedman was paid for with forty solidi, _i.e._ sixty Kentish scillings. The payment thus corresponded with that for the Kentish læt of the second class.

[Sidenote: The grades the result of growth of kindred.]

These correspondences are unexpected and very significant, but the significance is made still more important by the clause in the Laws of Wihtræd describing the position of the newly made freedman under Kentish custom. The description of his position might almost be taken as a description of the ‘frialgiafi’ or newly made leysing of the Norse laws. Under Kentish law the freedman was to be folkfree, but ‘the freedom-giver was to keep the heritage and wergeld and mund of his family, be he over the march wherever he will.’ This was, as we have seen, almost exactly the position of the Norse leysing before he had made his freedom ale. He had as yet no kindred to swear and to fight for him. He was still under the mund and protection of his lord. His descendants could only obtain the protection of a kindred and become wholly free from the _thyrmsl_ of the lord, when in the course of generations a kindred had grown up gradually around them.

So too, as we have seen, under the Bavarian laws the freedman’s wergeld went to his lord.[312] Under the Frisian law the wergeld of the _litus_ went to his lord.[313] Under Ripuarian law even the ‘homo denarialis’--the freedman who became a Frank with a full wergeld--was recognised as having at first no kindred. If he had no children, his property went to the fisc. And it was not till the third generation that his descendants had full rights of inheritance.[314] We have already found abundant evidence of the continued force of tribal custom and tribal instincts in regard to the importance of kindred while considering the meaning and function of the hyndens in connection with the twelve-hynde and twy-hynde classes of the Anglo-Saxon laws. These remarkable correspondences between the position held by the læts in Kent and that of the leysings and freedmen and liti of the Continental laws, without our making too much of them, may fairly be taken as additional evidence of the tenacity of tribal custom in these matters.[315]

VII. THE AMOUNT OF THE KENTISH WERGELDS.

[Sidenote: Probable Kentish wergelds eorl 600, freeman 200, Kentish scillings.]

Once more we return to the amount of the wergelds of the Kentish eorl and freeman.

We have seen reason to believe that the payments of 300 and 100 scillings of the laws of Hlothære and Eadric were half-wergelds, and that the full wergelds were 600 and 200 scillings.

If they may be so considered they are at once put on line with the Frankish wergelds. The threefold wergeld of the eorl becomes evidently due to his noble birth or official position. And, if the Kentish and Frankish solidi had been alike, the similarity of the wergelds would have been complete.

[Sidenote: As in the Frankish laws.]

The wergelds of the Frankish group of laws were found to be as follows:--

Lex Salica, Graphio or ingenuus in truste Regis 600 solidi } Frank or Barbarian living under Salic law 200 ” }

Lex Ripuariorum, Comes &c. in truste Regis 600 ” } Ingenuus 200 ” }

Lex Angliorum et Werinorum, Adalingus 600 ” } Liber 200 ” }

Lex Chamavorum, Homo Francus 600 ” } Ingenuus 200 ” }

In all these cases the wergeld of the Royal official or person in high rank is threefold that of the _liber_ or _ingenuus_.[316]

[Sidenote: Confirmed by comparison with the King’s mundbyrd.]

Confining attention now to the position of the Kentish freeman, further confirmation of the view that his wergeld was 200 Kentish scillings may be derived from a comparison of the King’s mundbyrd with his wergeld, and the corresponding Continental payments _pro fredo_ with the wergelds of the _liber_ and _ingenuus_ of the Continental laws.

The Kentish mundbyrd of 50 Kentish scillings was one fourth of the Kentish freeman’s wergeld if 200 Kentish scillings.

The Mercian mundbyrd of five pounds of silver was one fourth of the Mercian wergeld of 1200 scillings of four pence, or twenty pounds.

The Wessex mundbyrd of five pounds would be one fourth of the Wessex wergeld proper if the latter might be looked upon as the same as the Mercian with the mundbyrd added.[317]

The Alamannic and Bavarian payments _pro fredo_ of 40 solidi were one fourth of the Alamannic and Bavarian wergeld of 160 solidi.

And Brunner[318] and others consider that, although the payment _pro fredo_ was sometimes an extra payment, the 200 solidi of the Frankish wergeld equalled 160 solidi with one fourth added _pro fredo_.

Now, if instead of holding the Kentish freeman’s wergeld to be 200 Kentish scillings we were to take it to be the _medume_ wergeld of 100 scillings, we should destroy the correspondence of the King’s mundbyrd with the wergeld, and make the mundbyrd half the wergeld instead of a quarter: unlike what it was in the other laws. This hardly seems a likely supposition.

[Sidenote: And also with payment for eye, hand, and foot.]

We get still further evidence if we compare the payments for the eye, hand, and foot in the Kentish and Continental laws. We have seen that the Kentish payment was 50 scillings, _i.e._ the same as the King’s mundbyrd and one fourth of the wergeld of 200 scillings. In the Alamannic and Bavarian laws and in those of the Chamavi the payment for these, like the payment _pro fredo_, was one quarter of the freeman’s wergeld. In the Frankish laws it was one half. But the reason of this is, not that either the Frankish payment _pro fredo_ or the wergeld is less than in other laws, but that the payment for the eye, hand, and foot is greater. The Frankish payment for the eye, hand, or foot was 100 solidi of three tremisses, _i.e._ half as much again as the Kentish freeman’s wergeld would be if only 100 Kentish scillings of two tremisses; which again seems unlikely.

At first sight the Wessex payments for the eye, hand, and foot present an anomaly. The Wessex twelve-hynde wergeld of 1200 Wessex scillings of five pence at a ratio of 1:10 corresponds, as we have seen, with the Frankish freeman’s wergeld of 200 solidi. The payment for the eye, hand, and foot in King Alfred’s Laws is 66⅔ Wessex scillings, _i.e._ only one eighteenth of the twelve-hynde wergeld. But the explanation no doubt is that in the Laws of King Alfred the payments for injuries are stated for the _twyhynde_-man’s grade, those for the eye, hand, and foot being one third of the twyhyndeman’s wergeld of 200 Wessex scillings.

[Sidenote: Kentish freeman’s wergeld most likely 200 Kentish scillings, or 4000 sceatts.]

On the whole, therefore, these considerations seem to strengthen the supposition that the Kentish freeman’s wergeld was 200 Kentish scillings. That the Kentish wergeld should differ from that of Mercia and Wessex need not surprise us, seeing that we started with the warning that we should find it so as regards both the _barones_ and _villani_. To the writer of the so-called Laws of Henry I. the eorl was no doubt the _baro_ and the freeman or ceorl the _villanus_ of Norman phraseology. And we need not wonder at his confusion if he had nothing but the laws to guide him. It is necessary, however, to look at the question of the wergelds from a broader point of view than his could be.

It must not be forgotten that the Continental wergelds of the Merovingian period were all stated in gold solidi. The first emigrants into Britain must have known this perfectly well. Kentish moneyers coined gold tremisses, and when they afterwards coined silver it was in silver tremisses of the same weight, which earned the name in England of ‘sceatts.’

Any exact comparison of English and Continental wergelds must obviously be dependent upon the ratio between gold and silver.

[Sidenote: Archbishop Egbert’s priest’s wergeld also 4000 sceatts--_i.e._ 200 ounces of silver or _Mina Italica_ of gold.]

The Kentish scilling of two gold tremisses at 1:10 was reckoned in the Laws of Ethelbert as equal to 20 sceatts--_i.e._ to the Roman ounce--and the wergeld, if of 200 scillings, was thus, as we have seen, a wergeld in silver of 200 ounces or 4000 sceatts. We have seen also that Archbishop Egbert claimed for his priests a wergeld of 200 ounces of silver, which thus would accord exactly with the Kentish wergeld of 200 scillings. It might almost seem that he may have consulted his colleague the Archbishop of Canterbury and fixed his clerical demand in accordance with the Kentish wergeld rather than with that of Wessex or Mercia.

Nor was there anything unnatural or abnormal in the Kentish wergeld of 200 ounces of silver, inasmuch as 200 Roman ounces of silver at a ratio of 1:10 would equal the _Mina Italica_ of twenty Roman ounces or of two ancient Roman pounds of gold.

We may therefore with confidence, but without claiming certainty, fairly state the Kentish wergelds in Kentish scillings and sceatts, thus:--

[Sidenote: Kentish wergelds.]

Kentish scillings Sceatts

Eorl 600 (possibly 300?) = 12,000 Freeman 200 (possibly 100?) = 4,000 Læt (1) 80 = 1,600 ” (2) 60 = 1,200 ” (3) 40 = 800

And when put together in this way the proportion between the wergeld of the freeman and that of the læts becomes important. In the Norse laws the leysing’s wergeld was one sixth that of the hauld or odalman. In the Bavarian and Saxon laws the wergeld of the _litus_ was one fourth that of the freeman. Anything like these proportions in Kent would make a wergeld as low as 100 scillings for the freeman very improbable.

[Sidenote: The sceatts could not have been farthings.]

Lastly, perhaps it may be fair to the reader to recur once more to the question of the Kentish scilling. If any doubt should remain as to whether we are right in regarding the sceatt as the silver coin of that name, twenty of which went to the Roman ounce until it was superseded by the penny of Offa and Alfred, surely that doubt must now be dispelled. For if, according to the view of Schmid and others, the sceatt were to be taken as a farthing or _quarter_ of a sceatt, the correspondence of Kentish with Continental wergelds and payments _pro fredo_ would be altogether destroyed. The eorl’s triple wergeld at a ratio of 1:10 would be only one sixth (and if 300 scillings only one twelfth) of that of the Frankish noble or official, while the Kentish freeman’s wergeld would be reduced to one sixth (or if 100 scillings to only one twelfth) of that of the Continental _liber_ or _ingenuus_.

One perhaps must not say that such a result would be impossible. But would it be a likely one? We should have to suppose that the Jutish chieftain, perfectly familiar with the Continental wergeld of the freeman as 200 or 160 gold solidi, equated by long tradition with the round number of 100 head of cattle, upon settlement in Kent reduced the wergeld of the freeman to one sixth or one twelfth of what it was in the country he came from. From what we know of the tenacity of tribal custom everywhere, especially as regards the amount of the wergelds, it is difficult to conceive of his doing so.

VIII. RESULT OF THE KENTISH EVIDENCE.

We are now in a position to take a broader view of the wergelds, Continental, Kentish, Wessex, and Mercian.

[Sidenote: The Kentish, Wessex, and Mercian wergelds thus brought into line with the normal Continental wergeld of 200 and 160 gold solidi or 100 head of cattle.]

To the incidental mention of the fact that the Kentish freeman’s wergeld, if 200 Kentish scillings, equalled the gold _Mina Italica_ may be added the further incident that it was equal to 100 ‘sweetest cows’ of the Alamannic laws. Whether accidental coincidences or not, these facts bring us back to the point with which this inquiry started, viz. the widespread normal wergeld of 100 head of cattle and its very general traditional equation with a gold mina.

The main facts elicited as to the amount of the wergelds in the course of this inquiry are these.

At the date of the Kentish Laws and generally during the seventh century we find three wergelds in use in England for the freeman:--

The Wessex wergeld of 6000 sceatts at 1:10 = 600 gold tremisses

” Mercian ” 4800 ” { at 1:10 = 480 ” ” { at 1:12 = 400 ” ”

” Kentish ” 4000 ” at 1:10 = 400 ” ”

And on the Continent we find the two wergelds:--

Frankish 200 solidi = 600 gold tremisses The other 160 ” = 480 ” ”

Now, in the fairly contemporary laws of the Ripuarian Franks, and of the Burgundians, the traditional values of animals we have found to be stated as follows:--

Ox 2 solidi = 6 gold tremisses Cow 1 solidus = 3 ” ”

And in the nearly contemporary Alamannic laws the traditional values were:--

Best ox = 5 gold tremisses Medium ox and sweetest cow = 4 ” ”

[Sidenote: The differences covered by ratio between gold and silver 1:10 and 1:12.]

Within the range of these variations in the ratio between gold and silver, and in the local value of animals, there seems to be ample room and reason for the variations in the money values of the wergelds.

(1) 100 oxen of 6 tremisses (_i.e._ 600 tremisses) equal the Frankish wergeld of 200 gold solidi, and at 1:10 the Wessex wergeld of 6000 sceatts.

(2) A long hundred of 120 cows of 4 tremisses (_i.e._ 480 tremisses) would equal the wergeld of 160 gold solidi, and at 1:10 the Mercian wergeld of 4800 sceatts.

(3) 100 cows at 4 tremisses (_i.e._ 400 tremisses) make the Kentish wergeld of (if we are right) 200 Kentish scillings of 2 tremisses, and at 1:10, 4000 sceatts. If we change the ratio to 1:12, then a Kentish wergeld of 100 cows of 4 tremisses would in silver equal the Mercian wergeld of 4800 sceatts. In other words, the difference between the Kentish and Mercian wergeld may be explained, either as one between 100 and 120 cows, or, the number of cows remaining at 100, between the ratios of 1:10 and 1:12.

There is thus in these fairly contemporary values of Western Europe, in the seventh century, or within the Merovingian period, so obviously room for the variations in the wergelds that, whether as to origin the differences may be of historical interest or not, at any rate for our present purpose we are fairly warned by the general coincidence in the wergelds not to make too much of the differences.

[Sidenote: Kentish freeman and the twelve-hyndeman = Continental _freeman_.]

The Kentish laws, therefore, lead us with some confidence to recognise the practical identity of the wergeld of the Kentish freeman with that, not of the Wessex ceorl, but of the twelve-hyndeman.

We have been led cautiously step by step to this result, and, whether the problem raised by it be capable of solution or not, it is important that it should be fairly stated and considered. Even if the Kentish freeman’s wergeld was only 100 Kentish scillings, it would more nearly correspond with the six-hyndeman’s wergeld than with that of the Wessex ceorl. On the other hand, the wergelds of the Kentish læts are very fairly on a level with that of the Wessex ceorl. Taking an average between the second and third class of læts the correspondence would be exact.[319]

[Sidenote: Kentish læt and the twy-hyndeman = the Continental _freedman_.]

If, therefore, the wergeld of the Kentish freeman may be regarded as practically equivalent to that of the Continental _liber_ or _ingenuus_ on the one hand, and to that of the twelve-hyndeman of the Anglo-Saxon laws on the other hand, and if that of the Kentish læt was like that of the Norse leysing and of the twy-hyndeman, then once more it becomes natural and right, and in accordance with ancient custom, that in the Compact between Alfred and Guthrum the twelve-hyndeman should be made ‘equally dear’ with the Norse hauld, and so with the _liber_ or _ingenuus_ of the Continental laws, while the twy-hyndeman should be held ‘equally dear’ with the Danish leysing.