Chapter II: The Regalia, or Rights of Royalty (2)

TREASURE TROVE.—The first of these is Treasure-trove, which was, in all probability, of considerable importance and value: it is designated in Anglosaxon charters by the words “ealle hordas búfan eorðan and binnan eorðan,” and frequently occurs in the grants to monastic houses. In very early and heathen periods various causes combined to render the burial of treasure common. It was a point of honour to carry as much wealth with one from this world to the next as possible; and it was a recognized duty of the comites and household of a chief to sacrifice at his funeral, whatever valuable chattels they might have gained in his service. We may infer from Beówulf[87] that a portion at least of the treasure he gained by his fatal combat with the firedrake was to accompany him in the tomb. Some of it was to be burnt with his body, but some, according to the practice of the pagan North, to be buried in the mound raised over his ashes[88].

Hí on beorg dydon They put into the mound
beág ⁊ beorht siglu, rings and bright gems,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
forléton eorla gestreón they let earth hold
eorðan healdan, the gains of noble men,
gold on greóte, gold in the dust,
ðǽr hit nú gen lífað where it doth yet remain
eldum swá unnýt useless to men
swá hit ǽror wæs. even as before it was[89].

-----

Footnote 87:

Beow. l. 6016 _seq._: compare l. 5583 _seq._

Footnote 88:

Ibid. l. 6320.

Footnote 89:

See the account of the burial of Haraldr Hilditavn in the Fornald.
Savg. i. 387. “Ok áðr enn havgrinn væri aptr lokinn, þá biðr Hríngr
Konúngr til gánga allt stórmenni ok alla Kappa, ok við voru staddir,
at kasta í havginn stórum hríngum ok góðum vápnum, til sæmdr Haraldi
Konúngi Hilditavn; ok eptir þat var aptr byrgði havgrinn vandliga.”
Brynhildr caused the jewels which her father Buðli had given her, to
be burnt with herself and Sigurðr. Sigurd, evid. iii. 65.

-----

When we consider the truly extraordinary number of mounds or _heathen burial-places_ which are mentioned in the boundaries of Saxon charters, we cannot doubt that large quantities of the precious metals were thus committed to the earth. To this superstitious cause others of a more practical nature were added. In all countries where from want of commerce and convenient internal communication, or from general insecurity, there is no profitable investment for capital, hoarding is largely resorted to by those who may chance to become possessed of articles of value: we need go no further than Ireland or France for an example, where one of the most striking signs of the prevalent barbarism, is the concealment of specie and plate, often underground[90]. And in cases of sudden invasion, especially by enemies who had not the habit of sparing religious houses, the earth may have been resorted to as the safest depository of treasure which it was impossible to transport[91]. William of Malmesbury attributes to the fears of the Britons the accumulations which he says were frequently discovered in his own day[92], and there can be little doubt that this even among the Saxons tended to increase the quantity of gold and silver withdrawn from general use. It may have been partly the conviction of the mischief resulting to society from this habit,—by which gold was made “eldum swá unnýt swá hit ǽror wæs,”—that caused the very frequent and strong expression of blame which we find in Anglosaxon works applied to those who bury treasure, and apparently also to treasure-hunters. It may be that it was thought impious to violate even the heathen sanctuary of the dead; at all events, the popular belief was encouraged that buried treasure was guarded by spells, watched by dragons[93], and loaded with a curse which would cleave for ever to the discoverer: hidden gold is in fact always represented as _heathen_ gold, which, we may readily suppose, could only be purified from its mischievous qualities by passing through the hands of the universal purifiers in such cases, the clergy. Strictly however the king was the proper owner of all treasure-trove, and where the lord of a manor obtained the right to appropriate it to himself, it could only be by grant from the representative of the whole state[94]. Probably the sovereigns were not quite so superstitious as the bulk of their subjects, and certainly they were much better able to defend their own rights than the simple landowners in the rural districts. Still in a very great number of cases they granted away their privilege; probably finding it easier and more profitable to give it up to those who would have used it, without a grant, than to undergo the trouble of detecting and punishing them for taking it unpermitted into their own hands.

-----

Footnote 90:

In Ireland this is so common as to have caused the existence of what
we may call a professional class of treasure-seekers, whose idle,
gambling pursuit is in admirable harmony with the Keltic hatred for
honest, steady labour.

Footnote 91:

To this cause may be attributed the hoards discovered within a few
years at Cuerdale, Hexham, and other places on the borders; and some
perhaps of the numerous _finds_ at Wisby and in Gothland.

Footnote 92:

“Partim sepultis thesauris, quorum plerique in hac aetate defodiuntur,
Romam ad petendas suppetias ire intendunt.” Gest. Reg. i. § 3. It is
well worth the consideration of our antiquarians who have devoted
pains and money to the opening of barrows, how far the notorious
searches which have been made for treasure in these repositories, by
successive generations of Saxons, Danes and Normans, may have
interfered with the _original_ disposition of sepulchral mounds,
cairns and cromlechs. The legend of Gúðlác supplies a Saxon instance
of the highest antiquity. “Wæs ðǽr on ðám ealande sum hláw mycel ofer
eorðan geworht, ðone ylcan men iúgeara for feos wilnunga gedulfon and
brǽcon: ðá was ðǽr on óðre sídan ðæs hláwes gedolfen swylíc mycel
wæterseáð wǽre.” Cap. 4. Godw. Ed. p. 26.

Footnote 93:

Beów. l. 6100. In the North it is difficult to find a hoard without a
dragon, or a dragon without a hoard.

Footnote 94:

Concealment of treasure-trove is a grave offence, inasmuch as it
immediately touches the person and dignity of the king: “De
inventoribus thesauri occultati inventi, haec quidem graviora sunt et
maiora, eo quod personam regis tangunt principaliter. Sunt etiam
crimina aliquantulum minora ... sicut haec; de homicidiis causalibus
et voluntariis,” _seq._ Fleta, lib. 1. cap. 20. § 1, 2, 3 _seq._,
where this offence is assimilated to high-treason, and classed above
all offences against individuals, including murder, rape, arson and
burglary.

-----

PASTUS or CONVIVIUM, _Cyninges feorm_.—One of the royal duties was to make, in person or by deputy, periodical journeys through the country, progresses, in the course of which the king visited different districts, proclaimed his peace, confirmed the rights and privileges of the freemen or free communities, and heard complaints against the officers of the executive, if such had arisen during the exercise of their functions. This, which on its first occurrence immediately after his election was known in Germany by the name of the _Einritt ins land_, or _Landbereisung_[95], was probably connected with the principle of the king’s being the proper guardian of the boundaries: and in the period when the people had lost the power of electing their king at a general meeting, it may have served the purpose of giving them an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the person of their ruler. It is difficult to say when the system of progresses entirely ceased; but there can be no doubt that it subsisted in one form or another till a very late period in England. Under the Anglosaxon law it was by no means a matter of amusement or caprice, but of positive duty, on the part of the king; and Royalty _in eyre_ was a necessary condition of a state of society which would have rejected as a ludicrous tyranny the pretension of any one city to be the central deposit of all the powers and machinery of government. The kings of the Merwingian race in France, who probably retained something of an old priestly character, made these circuits in the celebrated chariot drawn by oxen, which later and ill-informed writers have imagined was a sign of their degradation, instead of their dignity[96]. Of this particular part of the ceremony no trace remains in England, and it is probable that as occasion served, the king either rode on horseback, circumnavigated, or was towed or rowed along the navigable rivers[97]. On these occasions particularly, he had a right to claim harbour and refection for himself and a certain number of his suite in various places, principally religious houses. These claims, which answer in many respects to the _procuratio_ of the ecclesiastical law, were gradually extended so as to include the royal commissioners or _Missi_, and in many cases became a fixed charge upon the lands, whether the king actually visited them or not[98]. Very many of the charters granted to monasteries record the exemption from them, purchased at a heavy price by prelates, from his avarice or piety[99]. And as the king himself gradually ceased to undertake these distant and fatiguing expeditions, and entrusted to his special messengers the task of seeing and hearing for him, so they in time established a claim to harbourage and reception in the same places. This was extended to all public officers going on the king’s affairs, called Angelcynnes men, Fæsting men, Rǽde fasting, and the like: to all messengers dispatched on the public service from one kingdom to another, while there were several kingdoms; and very probably to those who carried communications from the ealdormen to the king, when one rule comprehended all the several districts. And not only for those who travelled on important affairs of state, and who were very often persons of high birth and distinguished station, but even for certain servants of the royal household were these claims enforced. The huntsmen, stable-keepers and falconers of the court could demand bed and board in the monasteries, where they were often unwelcome guests enough: and this royal right, no doubt frequently used by the ealdorman or sheriff as an engine of oppression, was also bought off at very high prices.

-----

Footnote 95:

For a full account of this see Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 237.

Footnote 96:

See Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 262.

Footnote 97:

I have little doubt that, when Beda speaks of the pomp with which
Eádwini of Northumberland was accustomed to ride, he refers to this
ceremony. Hist. Eccl. ii. 16. The well-known tales of Eádgár, rowed by
six kings on the Dee, and Cnut at Ely, will at once occur to the
reader: but has it never occurred to him to ask what Eádgár could
possibly be doing at the one place, or Cnut at the other? See Will.
Malm. Gest. Reg. ii. § 148. The same author tells us of Eádgár: “Omni
aestate, emensa statim Paschali festivitate, naves per omnia littora
coadunari praecipiebat; ad occidentalem insulae partem cum orientali
classe, et illa remensa cum occidentali ad borealem, inde cum boreali
ad orientalem remigare consuetus; pius scilicet explorator, ne quid
piratae turbarent. Hyeme et vere, per omnes provincias equitando,
iudicia potentiorum exquirebat, violati iuris severus ultor; in hoc
iustitiae, in illo fortitudini studens; in utroque reipublicae
utilitatibus consulens.” Gest. Reg. ii. § 156. Flor. Wig. an. 975.
“Cum _more assueto_ rex Cnuto regni fines peragrarat.” Hist. Rames.
Eccl. (Gale, iii. 441.)

Footnote 98:

Cod. Dipl. No. 143. “Necnon et trium annorum ad se pertinentes
pastiones, id est sex convivia, libenter concedendo largitus est.”
Probably they were in arrear, and Offa excused them: but they could
not have been in arrear unless they were payable any under
circumstances; that is, whether the king visited the monastery or not.
I take this to be a standing tax, known under the name of Cyninges
feorm, the king’s farm: it was probably commuted for money, and after
a time rendered certain as to amount. In 814 Cénwulf released the
Bishop of Worcester from a _pastus_ of twelve men which he was bound
to find at his different monasteries, and the exemption was worth an
estate of thirteen hides. Cod. Dipl. No. 203.

Footnote 99:

See Vol. I. p. 294, _seq._ Examples may be found in almost every other
page of the Codex Diplomaticus. See also Hist. Rames. Eccl. 85.

-----

PALFREYS.—Somewhat allied to this was the king’s right to claim the service of horses or palfreys, for the carriage of effects from one royal vill to another, or for the furtherance of his messengers or the public servants[100]. This, which in Hungary still subsists under the name of Vorspann, was a heavy burthen, as it tended to withdraw horses from agricultural labour, at the moment when they were most wanted; and it is to be feared that they were, on this pretext, only too often taken from the harvesting of the bishop or abbot and his tenants, to secure that of the ealdorman. This therefore is frequently compounded for, at a dear rate, under the expression of freedom _a parafrithis_ or _paraveredis_[101].

-----

Footnote 100:

“Faciebant servitium regis cum equis vel per aquam usque ad
Blidbeream, Reddinges, Sudtone, Besentone: et hoc facientibus dabat
praepositus mercedem non de censu regis, sed de suo.” Domesd. Berks.
Many of these burthens are summed up in a charter of liberties granted
by Eédweard of Wessex at Taunton, to Winchester: “Erat namque antea in
illo supradicto monasterio pastus unius noctis regi, et octo canum, et
unius caniculari pastus, et pastus novem noctium accipitrariis regis,
et quidquid rex vellet inde ducere usque ad Curig vel Willettun [Curry
and Wilton in Somerset] cum plaustris et equis, et si advenae de aliis
regionibus advenirent, debebant ducatum habere ad aliam regalem villam
quae proxima fuisset in illorum via.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1084. The
Vorspann in Hungary, which is a right to a peasant’s horses on the
production of an order from the county authorities, is generally a
convenience to himself as well as the traveller, who does not object
to pay for much better accommodation than he could obtain from the
ordinary posting establishment. But it is nevertheless a remnant of
barbarism which we may now hope to see vanish, together with every
other obstacle to free communication, under the management of that
most patriotic and enlightened gentleman Count Stephen Szechenji.

Footnote 101:

On the complaint of the clergy of the diocese of Cremona, the emperor
Lothaire decided that _they_ were not bound to supply waggons and
horses for his service. Böhm. Reg. Karol. No. 544.

-----

VIGILIA.—Another right which the king claimed was that of having proper watch set over him when he came into a district. This, called Vigilia and Custodia in the Latin authorities, is the Heáfodweard, or _Headward_ of the Saxons. It extended also to the guard kept for him on his hunting excursions[102]; and coupled with it was his claim to the assistance of a certain number of men in the hunt itself, either as beaters or managers of the nets in which deer were taken[103].

-----

Footnote 102:

“Homines de his terris custodiebant regem apud Cantuariam vel apud
Sandwic per tres dies, si rex illuc venisset.” Domesd. Kent. “Quando
rex iacebat in hac civitate, servabant eum vigilantes duodecim homines
de melioribus civitatis. Et cum ibi venationem exerceret, similiter
custodiebant eum cum armis meliores burgenses cabalos habentes.”
Domesd. Shropsh. “Isti debent vigilare in curia domini, cum praesens
fuerit.” Chartul. Evesh. f. 24.

Footnote 103:

“Qui monitus ad stabilitionem venationis non ibat quinquaginta solidos
regi emendabat.” Domesd. Berks.

-----

Sǽweard or coast-guard was also a royal right, performed by the tenants of those landowners whose estates lay contiguous to the sea. The miserable condition to which England was frequently reduced, by the systematic incursions of Scandinavian invaders, rendered this a very important duty, even in spite of the efforts of successive kings who early comprehended the destinies of this nation, and entrusted her defence to maritime armaments. It seems probable that various ports on the coast of Kent and Norfolk may have been particularly charged with this burthen, and that the _butsecarlas_ or shipmasters were held bound to supply craft on emergencies, or even for a regular system of patrolling. In this may have lain the foundation of the privileges enjoyed by the Cinque Ports, and similar coast towns, even before the Norman conquest.

ÆDIFICATIO.—It was further a royal right to claim the aid even of the freemen towards building and fencing the residence or fortress of the king: a certain amount of personal labour was thus demanded of them, in analogy with the _trinoda necessitas_ from which no estate could possibly be relieved. This kind of _corvée_ was no doubt performed by tenants whom the landowners settled on their estates, but really was due from the landowners themselves, except where their estates of bócland had been expressly freed from the royal burthens. Where the royal vill was also a district fortification, not even this general exception relieved the bóclands; fortifications being especially reserved in every charter, as well as building and repair of bridges.

WRECK.—Doubts have been started upon the subject of wreck, which do not appear well founded: it is true that circumstances of suspicion attach to the documents upon which the arguments pro and con were based in the time of Selden; but we are now in possession of further evidence, of a nature to remove all difficulty. I have no hesitation in including Wreck, both jetsam and flotsam, among the Regalia, which were granted not only to ecclesiastical corporations, but even to private landowners. The History of Ramsey[104] states that Eádweard the Confessor, whereby he might show a profitable love to the place, bestowed upon it Ringstede[105] with the adjacent liberty, and all that the sea cast up, which is called _Wreck_. We have yet the charter by which this grant is supposed to have been made[106], and it is very explicit upon the subject. After conveying lands and other possessions in Huntingdonshire, he proceeds to give several places, tenements or rents, on the coast of Norfolk and the Wash, at Wells, and Branchester, etc. In the last-named place, he adds, “cum omni maris proiectu, quod nos anglicè shipwrec appellamus.” He further adds, “de meo iure quod mihi soli competebat, absque ullius reclamatione vel contradictione ista addidi: inprimis Ringested, cum omnibus ad se pertinentibus, et cum omni maris eiectu, quod shipwrec appellamus,” etc. Now, although the authenticity of this charter, in its present form may be open to question, this fact does not of itself justify us in at once concluding against the privilege claimed under it. On the other hand the recognized right of the king throughout the Norman times, and the total absence of any opposition to its exercise, are _primâ facie_ evidence of its having resided in the crown before the Conquest[107]. Naufragium and Algarum maris are distinctly stated to be rights of the crown, in the laws of Henry the First[108], and we can give examples from other Saxon charters whose genuineness is beyond dispute. The Saxon Chronicle under the date 1029 records a grant made by Cnut to Christchurch, Canterbury, of the haven of Sandwich. The passage is defective, but enough of it remains to prove that it refers to an original document, of which very early copies are still in our possession[109]. In this he says:—

“Concedo eidem aecclesiae ad victum monachorum portum de Sanduuíc et omnes exitus eiusdem aquae, ab utraque parte fluminis cuiuscumque terra sit, a Pipernæsse usque ad Mearcesfleóte, ita ut natante nave in flumine, cum plenum fuerit, quam longius de navi potest securis parvula quam Angli vocant _Tapereax_ super terram proici, ministri aecclesiae Christi rectitudines accipiant, ... Si quid autem in magno mari extra portum, quantum mare plus se retraxerit, et adhuc statura unius hominis tenentis lignum quod Angli nominant _spreot_, et tendentis ante se quantum potest, monachorum est. Quicquid etiam ex hac parte medietatis maris inventum et delatum ad Sanduuíc fuerit, sive sit vestimentum, sive rete, arma, ferrum, aurum, argentum, medietas monachorum erit, alia pars remanebit inventoribus.”

-----

Footnote 104:

Hist. Rams. 106.

Footnote 105:

There are two places of this name on the coast of the Wash near
Burnham Market in Norfolk. The one intended is most probably Ringstead
St. Andrew’s.

Footnote 106:

Cod. Dipl. No. 809.

Footnote 107:

See Bracton, ii. 5. § 7. Westm. i. cap. 4. Stat. Praerog. Reg. cap.
11. Also 17. Edw. II. cap. 11. Rot. Chart. 20. Hen. III. m. 3. and 14.
Edw. III. m. 6. Pat. 42. Hen. III. m. 1. dorso. See also Sir W.
Stamford, Expos. King’s Prerog. fol 37, b.

Footnote 108:

Leg. Hen. I. 10. § 1. Ducange reads _laganum_ for _algarum_.

Footnote 109:

Cod. Dipl. No. 737, where it is printed both in Latin and Saxon.

-----

These words are quite wide enough to carry _wreck_, although this be not distinctly stated by name. But Eádweard the Confessor furnishes us with still further evidence. In a writ addressed by him to Ælfwold bishop of Sherborne, earl Harold, and Ælfred the sheriff of Dorsetshire, he says[110]: “Eádweard the king greets well Bishop Ælfwold, earl Harold, Ælfred the sheriff and all my thanes in Dorsetshire: and I tell you that Urk my húscarl is to have his strand, over against his own land, freely and well throughout, up from sea, and out on sea, and whatsoever may be driven to his strand, by my full command.”

-----

Footnote 110:

Cod. Dipl. No. 871.

-----

In this, as in many other cases, the principle seems to be, that that which has no ostensible owner is the property of the state, or of the king as its representative; and hence, in the later construction of the law of _wreck_, it was necessary that an absolute abandonment should have taken place, before wreck could be claimed. If there were _life_ on board, even a dog, cat, or lower animal, there could legally be no wreck, and this provision of the law has very often led to the perpetration of the most savage murders, as a precaution lest any living creature, by reaching the strand, should defeat the avarice of its barbarous owners. From the little evidence we can now recover, of the Saxon practice, this limitation does not appear to have existed.

MINT.—The coinage has always in every country been numbered among the regalia, and this land appears to make no exception. Although the Witena gemót, in conjunction with the king, exercise a general superintendence over this most important branch of the public affairs, still certain details remain which belong to the king exclusively. The number of moneyers generally in the various localities, the necessity of having one standard over all the realm, the penalties for unfaithful discharge of the moneyer’s duty, or for fraudulently imitating the money of the state, and similar enactments, might be determined by the great council of the realm; but the coin bore the image and superscription of the king, he received a description of _seigneuriage_ upon delivery of the dies, and he changed the coin when it seemed to require renovation or improvement. Thus we learn that Eádgár called in the old, and issued a new coinage, in the year 975, because it had become so clipped as to fall far short of the standard weight[111]: and in the Domesday record, the dues payable to the king on each change of die are noticed[112]. It seems clear that this royal right had been assumed by private individuals, or granted to them, like other royalties, previous to the time of Æðelrǽd: that prince enacted not only that there should be no moneyers beside the kings, but also that their number should be altogether diminished[113]; by which we may suppose that it was his intention to do away with the mints which the bishops had before possessed legally[114] in various towns, and which from the passages cited out of Domesday book, evidently continued to subsist, in spite of the provisions of the Council of Wantage. But if the coins themselves are to be trusted, we may conclude that on some occasions this right had been granted by the crown to others than the clergy. One piece still bears the name and head of Cyneðrýð, probably Offa’s queen[115]; and another with the impress of Hereberht, was probably coined by a Kentish duke. Both these cases, which are in themselves doubtful, are a hundred years earlier than Æðelrǽd’s law, above quoted.

-----

Footnote 111:

Matt. Westm. an. 975.

Footnote 112:

“Ibi erant duo monetarii; quisque eorum reddebat regi unam marcam
argenti, et viginti solidos, quando moneta vertebatur.” Domesd.
Dorset. “Septem monetarii erant ibi; unus ex his erat monetarius
episcopi. Quando moneta vertebatur, dabat quisque eorum octodecim
solidos pro cuneis recipiendis, et ex eo die quo redibant usque ad
unum mensem, dabat quisque eorum regi viginti solidos, et similiter
habebat episcopus de suo monetario. In civitate Wirecestre habuit rex
Edwardus hanc consuetudinem. Quando moneta vertebatur, quisque
monetarius dabat XX solidos ad Londoniam, pro cuneis monetae
accipiendis.” Domesd. Worcester. See also Domesd. Hereford.

Footnote 113:

Æðelr. iii. § 8; iv. § 9. Thorpe, i. 296, 303.

Footnote 114:

Æðelst. i. § 14. Thorpe, i. 206.

Footnote 115:

Or perhaps his relative, the abbess of Bedford, for it is difficult to
conceive how during coverture, the queen could have coined, and proof
is wanting that she was ever regent of his kingdom.

-----

MINES.—Mines and minerals are also among the regalia of a German king, and were so in England. The cases which principally come under our observation in the charters are salt-works and lead-mines; but in a document of the year 689, which however is not totally free from suspicion, Osuuini of Kent grants to Rochester a ploughland at Lyminge in Kent, in which he says there is a mine of iron[116]. In 716, Æðelbald of Mercia granted certain salt-works near the river Salwarpe at Lootwíc in Worcestershire, in exchange however for others to the north of the river[117]. In the same year he granted a hid of land in Saltwych, _vico emptorio salis_, to Evesham[118]. In 732, Æðelberht of Kent gave abbot Dun a quarter of a ploughland at Lyminge, where there were salt-works, that is evaporating pans[119], and added to it a grant of a hundred loads of wood per annum, necessary to the operation. In 738 Eádberht of Kent includes salt-works in a grant to Rochester[120], and similarly in 812, 814, Coenuulf, in grants to Canterbury[121]. In 833 Ecgberht gave salt-works in Kent, and a hundred and twenty loads of wood from the weald of Andred, to support the fires[122]. Three years later Wigláf of Mercia confirmed the liberties of Hanbury in Worcestershire, with all its possessions, including salt-wells and lead-works[123]. In 863, Æðelberht granted salt-works in Kent to Æðelred, with four waggons going for six weeks into the royal forest[124]. In 938, Æðelstán gave to Taunton three híds of land, and salt-pans[125].

-----

Footnote 116:

Cod. Dipl. No. 30. So likewise I imagine the ísengráfas (eisengruben)
of Cod. Dipl. No. 1118 to be iron-mines.

Footnote 117:

Cod. Dipl. No. 67. “Aliquam agelli partem in qua sal confici solet ...
ad construendos tres casulos et sex caminos ... sex alios ... caminos
in duobus casulis, in quibus similiter sal conficitur, vicarios
accipiens.”

Footnote 118:

Cod. Dipl. No. 68.

Footnote 119:

Cod. Dipl. No. 77. “Quarta pars aratri ... sali coquendo accommoda....
Et insuper addidi huic donationi ... in omni anno centum plaustra
onusta de lignis ad coquendum sal.”

Footnote 120:

Cod. Dipl. No. 85.

Footnote 121:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 199, 201.

Footnote 122:

Cod. Dipl. No. 234. “Et in eodem loco sali coquenda iuxta Limenae, et
in silva ubi dicitur Andred, centum viginti plaustra ad coquendum
sal.”

Footnote 123:

Cod. Dipl. No. 237, “Cum putheis salis et fornacibus plumbis.”

Footnote 124:

Cod. Dipl. No. 288. “Unamque salis coquinariam, hoc est án
sealternsteall, and ðer cota to, in ilia loco ubi nominatur Herewíc,
et quatuor carris transductionem in silba regis sex ebdomades a die
Pentecosten hubi alteri homines silbam cedunt, hoc est in regis
communione.”

Footnote 125:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 374. (cf. 1002). “Et tres [mansas] in loco qui Cearn
nuncupatur ad coquendam salis copiam.” In 854, Æðelwulf mentions
_salinaria_ in a grant to the same place. Cod. Dipl. No. 1051.

-----

The king in all these cases had possessed a right to levy certain dues at the pans or the pit’s mouth, upon the waggons as they stood, and upon the load being placed in them: these dues were respectively called the wǽnscilling and seámpending, literally _wainshilling_ and _loadpenny_, and were entirely independent of the rent which might be reserved by the landlord for the use of the ground, whether he were the king or a private person. And immunity from these dues might also be granted by the crown, and was so granted. In 884, Æðelred, duke of Mercia, who acted as a viceroy in that new portion of Ælfred’s kingdom, and exercised therein all the royal rights as fully as any king did in his own territories, gave Æðelwulf five híds at Humbleton, and licence to have six salt-pans, free from all the dues of king, duke or public officer, but still reserving the rights of the landlord[126]. But the same prince, about the same period, when conferring various royalties upon the cathedral of Worcester, retained the king’s dues at the pans in Saltwíc[127].

-----

Footnote 126:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1066. “Ego Æðelred, divina largiente gratia principatu
et dominio gentis Merciorum subfultus, donatione trado Æðelwulfo
terrain quinque manentium in loco qui dicitur Hymeltun ... salisque
coctionibus, id est, sex vascula possint praeparari salva libertate,
sine aliquo tributo dominatoris gentis praedictae, sive ducum,
iudicumve et praesidum, id est statione sive inoneratione plaustrorum,
nisi solo illi qui huic praedictae terrae Hymeltune dominus existat
... ut haec traditio, sive in terra praedicta, sive in vico salis,
absque omni censu atque tributo perpetualiter libera permaneat.”

Footnote 127:

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

-----

The peculiar qualities of salt, which make it a necessary of life to man, have always given a special character to the springs and soils which contain it. The pagan Germans considered the salt-springs holy, and waged wars of extermination for their possession[128]; and it is not improbable that they may generally have belonged to the exclusive property of the priesthood. If so, we can readily understand how, upon the introduction of Christianity, they would naturally pass into the hands of the king: and this seems to throw light upon the origin of this royalty, which Eichhorn himself looks upon as difficult of explanation[129]. Many of the royal rights were unquestionably inherited from the pagan priesthood.

-----

Footnote 128:

Tacit. Ann. xiii. 57. “Eadem aestate inter Hermunduros Cattosque
certatum magno praelio, dum flumen gignendo sale fecundum et
conterminum vi trahunt, super libidinem cuncta armis agendi religione
insita, eos maxime locos propinquare coelo, precesque mortalium a deis
nusquam propius audiri.”

Footnote 129:

Deut. Staatsr. ii. 426. § 297.

-----

MARKET.—The grant of a market, with power to levy tolls and exercise the police therein, was also a royalty, in the period of the consolidated monarchy; and to this head may be added the right to keep a private beam or steelyard, _trutina_ or _tróne_, yard-measure, and bushel. Of these the charters supply examples. The last-named rights were purchased in 857 by bishop Alhhun of Worcester, from Burgred, who, as king of Mercia, disposed of them to him, with a small plot of land in London. The price paid was sixty shillings, or a pound, to Ceólmund, the owner of the land, a like sum to the king, and an annual rent of twelve shillings to the latter[130]. Thirty-two years later, Ælfred and Æðelred of Mercia gave another small plot in the same city to Werfrið, also bishop of Worcester. He was to have a steelyard, and a measure, both for buying and selling, or for his own private use. And if any of his people dealt in the street or on the bank where the sales took place, the king was to have his toll: but if the bargain was struck within the bishop’s _curtis_, he was to have the toll[131].

-----

Footnote 130:

Cod. Dipl. No. 280. “Habeat intus liberaliter modium et pondera et
mensura[m], sicut in porto mos est ad fruendum.”

Footnote 131:

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

-----

In 904 Eádweard gave a market in Taunton to the bishop of Winchester, with the toll therefrom arising, by the name of “ðæs túnes cýping”[132]: and a few years earlier Æðelred of Mercia granted half the market-dues and fines at Worcester to the bishop of that city[133]. The Frankish emperors possessed and exercised the same right[134]. The strict law of the Anglosaxons, which treated all strangers with harshness, was unfavourable to the chapmen or pedlars, who in thinly-peopled countries are relied upon to bring markets home to every one’s door: and it must be admitted that, where internal communication is yet imperfect, stringent measures are necessary to guard against the disposal of goods improperly obtained. The details of these measures belong to another part of this work, but it is necessary to call attention here to the endeavour on the part of the authorities, to confine all bargaining as much as possible to towns and walled places[135]: the small tolls payable on these occasions to the proper officers were a reasonable sacrifice for the sake of a certificate of fair dealing, and the assured warranty of what the Saxon law calls _unlying_ witnesses. The king, as general conservator of the peace, had this royalty, and, as we have seen, granted it in various towns to those who would be able and willing to perform the duties which it implied.

-----

Footnote 132:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1084. “Praedictae etiam villae mercimonium, quod
anglicè ðæs túnes cýping appellatur, censusque omnus civilis sanctae
dei aecclesiae in Wintonia civitate, sine retractionis obstaculo cum
omnibus commodis aeternaliter deserviat.”

Footnote 133:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1075.

Footnote 134:

See Böhmer, Regest. Karol. Nos. 439, 628, 700, 2065, 2078.

Footnote 135:

Eádw. § 1. Æðelst. i. § 10, 12, 13; iii. § 2; v. § 10. Eádm. i. § 5.
Eádg. Sup. § 6. Æðelb. i. § 3. Cnut, ii. § 24. Eádw. Conf. § 38. Wil.
Conq. i. § 45; iii. § 10, 11.

-----

TOLL.—Closely connected with this are tolls, which, here as well as in Germany, the king claimed in harbours, and upon transport by roads and by navigable streams[136], and which he either remitted altogether in favour of certain favoured persons or empowered them to take; thus, in the first instance, creating for them a commercial monopoly of the greatest value, by enabling them to enter the market on terms of advantage. As early as the eighth century we find Æðelbald of Mercia granting to a monastery in Thanet, exemption from toll throughout his kingdom for one ship of burthen[137], remitting to Milræd, bishop of Worcester, the dues upon two ships, payable in the port of London[138], and to the bishop of Rochester the toll of one ship, whether his own or another’s, in the same port[139]. And the grant to St. Mildðrýð in Thanet was confirmed for himself, and increased by Eádberht of Kent in 761, and extended to London, Fordwíc and Seorre[140]; and if the actual ship to which this privilege was attached should become unseaworthy through age, or perish by shipwreck, a new one was to receive the same favour.

-----

Footnote 136:

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

Footnote 137:

Cod. Dipl. No. 84. “Navis onustae transvectionis censum qui a
theloneariis nostris tributaria exactione impetitur, perdonans
attribuo; ut ubique in regno nostro libera de omni regali fiscu et
tributo maneat.”

Footnote 138:

Cod. Dipl. No. 95. “Ðá forgeofende ic him álýfde alle nédbade twégra
sceopa ða ðe ðǽr ábædde beóð fram ðám nédbaderum in Lundentúnes hýðe;
ond næfre ic né míne lastweardas né ða nédbaderas geþristlǽcen ðæt heó
hit onwenden oððe ðon wiðgǽn.” See similar exemptions in Cod. Dipl.
Nos. 97, 98, 112.

Footnote 139:

Cod. Dipl. No. 78. “Indico me dedisse ... unius navis, sive illa
propria ipsius, sive cuiuslibet alterius hominis sit, incessum, id est
vectigal, mihi et antecessoribus meis iure regio in portu Lundoniae
usque hactenus conpetentem.” And this was confirmed a century later by
Berhtwulf of Mercia.

Footnote 140:

Cod. Dipl. No. 106. After mentioning one ship, relieved from toll in
London, he continues: “Alterius vero ... omne tributum atque vectigal
concedimus, quod etiam a thelonariis nostris iuste impetitur publicis
in locis, qui appellantur Forduuíc et Seorre.”

-----

A common privilege in charters of liberties is Tol, but this probably refers rather to a right of taking it upon sales within the jurisdiction, than properly to dues levied on transport. Such however are occasionally mentioned as matter of grant. Eádmund Irensída, conveying lands which had belonged to Sigeferð (whose widow he had married), includes toll upon water-carriage among his rights[141]. Cnut gave the harbour and tolls of Sandwich to Christchurch Canterbury[142], together with a ferry. This right, under Harald Haranfót, was attempted to be interfered with by the abbot of St. Augustine’s, who even at last went so far as to dig a canal in order to divert the channel of trade; but the monks of Christchurch nevertheless succeeded in retaining their property[143]. These examples, although not very numerous, are sufficient to show that the Anglosaxon kings fully possessed the right of levying and granting toll, as well as exemption from its payment; and they are sufficiently confirmed by Domesday and the laws of the kings themselves[144].

Footnote 141:

Cod. Dipl. No. 726. “Ita habeant sicut Siuerthus habuit in vita, in
longitudine et in latitudine, in magnis et in modicis rebus, campis,
pascuis, pratis, silvis, theloneum aquarum, piscationem in paludibus.”

Footnote 142:

Cod. Dipl. No. 737. “Eorum est navicula et transfretatio portus, et
theloneum omnium navium, cuiuscunque sit et undecumque veniat, quae ad
praedictum portum et ad Sanduuíc venerint.”

Footnote 143:

Cod. Dipl. No. 758. The story is altogether so good, and so well told,
that it may be given here entire.

“This writing witnesseth how Harold the king caused Sandwich to be
ridden about to his own hand: and he kept it for himself well nigh a
twelvemonth, and at any rate fully two herring-seasons, all against
God’s will, and against the Saints’ who lie at Christchurch, as it
turned out ill enough for him afterwards. And during this time there
went Ælfstán the abbot of St. Augustine’s, and got, with his lying
flatteries and his gold and silver, all secretly from Steorra who was
the king’s redesman, a right to the third penny of the toll at
Sandwich. Now when archbishop Eádsige and all the brotherhood at
Christchurch learnt this, they took counsel together, that they should
send Ælfgár, the monk of Christchurch, to king Harold. Now the king
lay at Oxford very ill, so that his life was despaired of; and there
were with him Lýfing, bishop of Devonshire, and Tancred the monk. Then
came the messenger from Christchurch to the bishop; and he forth at
once to the king, and with him Ælfgár the monk, Osweard of
Harrietsham, and Tancred; and they told the king that he had deeply
sinned against Christ, in ever daring to take back anything from
Christchurch which his predecessors had given: and then they told him
about Sandwich, how it had been ridden about to his hand. There lay
the king and turned quite black in the face at their tale, and swore
by God Almighty and all his saints to boot, that it never was either
his rede or his deed, that Sandwich should be taken from Christchurch.
So it was plain enough that it was other peoples’ and not king
Harold’s contrivance: and to say the truth, Ælfstán the abbot’s
counsel was with the men who counselled it out of Christchurch. Then
king Harold sent Ælfgár the monk back to archbishop Eádsige and all
the monks at Christchurch, and gave them God’s greeting and his own,
and commanded that they should have Sandwich, into Christchurch, as
fully and wholly as they had ever had it in any king’s day, both in
rent, in stream, on strand, in fines, and in everything which any king
had ever most fully possessed before them. Now when abbot Ælfstán
heard of this, he came to archbishop Eádsige and begged his support
with the brotherhood, about the third penny: and away they both went
to all the brotherhood and begged the Convent that abbot Ælfstán might
be allowed the third penny of the toll, and he to give the Convent ten
pounds. But they refused it altogether throughout, and said it was no
use asking: and withal archbishop Eádsige backed him much more than he
did the Convent. And when he could not get on in this way, he asked
leave to make a wharf over against Mildðrýð’s acre, opposite the ferry
(?) to keep, but all the Convent decidedly refused this: and
archbishop Eádsige left it all to their own decision. Then abbot
Ælfstán set to, with a great help, and let dig a great canal at
Hyppeles fleót, hoping that craft would lie there, just as they did at
Sandwich: however he got no good by it; for he laboureth in vain who
laboureth against Christ’s will. So the abbot left it in this state,
and the Convent took to their own, in God’s witness, and Saint Mary’s,
and all the Saints’ who rest at Christchurch and Saint Augustine’s.
This is all true, believe it who will: abbot Ælfstán never got the
third penny at Sandwich in any other way. God’s blessing be with us
all now and for ever more! Amen.”

Footnote 144:

The following is the tariff of tolls levied at Billingsgate. Æðelr.
iv. § 2. “De telonio dando ad Bylingesgate. Ad Billingesgate, si
advenisset una navicula, unus obolus telonei dabatur: si maior et
haberet siglas, unus denarius. Si adveniat ceól vel hulcus, et ibi
iaceat, quatuor denarios ad teloneum. De navi plena lignorum, unum
lignum ad teloneum. In ebdomada panum telonium tribus diebus, die
dominica, et die Martis et die Jovis. Qui ad pontem venisset cum uno
bato, ubi piscis inesset, ipse mango unum obolum dabat in telonium, et
de una maiori nave, unum denarium. Homines de Rotomago, qui veniebant
cum vino vel craspice, dabant rectitudinem sex solidorum de magna
navi, et vicesimum frustum de ipso craspice. Flandrenses et
Ponteienses et Normannia et Francia, monstrabant res suas et
extolneabant. Hogge et Leodium et Nivella, qui per terras ibant,
ostensionem dabant et teloneum. Et homines Imperatoris, qui veniebant
in navibus suis, bonarum legum digni tenebantur, sicut et nos. Praeter
discarcatam lanum et dissutum unctum et tres porcos vivos licebat eis
emere in naves suas; et non licebat eis aliquod foreceápum facere
burhmannis; et dare telonium suum, et in sancto Natali Domini duos
grisengos pannos, et unum brunum, et decem libras piperis, et
cirotecas quinque hominum, et duos caballinos tonellos aceto plenos,
et totidem in Pascha: de dosseris cum gallinis, una gallina telonei,
et de uno dossero cum ovis, quinque ova telonei, si veniant ad
mercatum. Smeremangestre, quae mangonant in caseo et butiro,
quatuordecim diebus ante Natale Domini, unum denarium, et septem
diebus post Natale, unum alium.”

-----

FOREST.—It may be doubted whether the right of Forest was at any time carried among the Saxons to the extent which made it so hateful a means of oppression under the Norman kings; but there can be no question that it was one of the royalties. In every part of Germany the _bannum Forestae_ or _Forstbann_ was so[145], and even to this day is as much an object of popular dislike in some districts as it ever was among our forefathers. In countries which depend much upon the immediate produce of the soil for support, hunting is not a mere amusement to be purchased or rented by the rich as a luxury, but a very necessary means of increasing the supply of food; and where coal-mines have not been worked, the forest alone or the turf-heap can furnish the means of securing warmth, as indispensable a necessary of life as bread or flesh: we have seen moreover that it was essential to the comfort of a Saxon family to possess a right of masting cattle in the neighbouring woods.

-----

Footnote 145:

Eichhorn, Deut. Staatsr. i. 813, § 199.

-----

In the original division of the lands large tracts of forest may have fallen to the king’s share, which he could dispose of as his private property. Much of the folcland also may have been covered with wood, and here and there may have lain sacred groves not included within the limits of any community[146]. It is not unreasonable to suppose that all these were gradually brought under the immediate influence and authority of the king; and that when once the royal power had so far advanced as to reduce the scír-geréfa to the condition of a crown officer, the shire-marks or forests would also become subject to the royal _ban_[147]. That very considerable forest rights still continued to subsist in the hands of the free men, in their communities, may be admitted, and is evidence of the firm foundation for popular liberty which the old Mark-organization laid. But even in these, the possession was not left totally undisturbed, and the public officers, the king, ealdorman and geréfa appear to have gradually made various usurpations valid.

-----

Footnote 146:

“Lucos et nemora consecrant.” Tac. Germ. ix.

Footnote 147:

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

-----

Over his private forests the king naturally exercised all the rights of absolute ownership; and as his _ban_ ultimately implies this, at least in theory, it becomes difficult to distinguish those which he dealt with as _dominus fundi_, from those in which he acted _iure regali_. That he reserved the vert and venison in some of them, and _preserved_ with a strictness worthy of more enlightened ages, is clear from the severe provisions of Cnut’s Constitutiones de Foresta[148]. According to this important document, the forest law was as follows. In every county there were to be four thanes, whose business it was, under the title of Head-foresters, _primarii forestae_, to hold plea of all offences touching the forest, and having the _ban_ or power of punishing for such offences. Under them were sixteen lesser thanes, but gentlemen, whose business it was to look after the vert and venison; and these had nothing to do with the process in the forest court. To each of the sixteen were assigned two yeomen, who were to keep watch at night over the vert and venison, and do the necessary menial services: but they were freemen, and even employment in the forest gave freedom. All the expenses of these officers were defrayed by the king, and he further supplied the outfit of the several classes: to the head-foresters, yearly, two horses, one saddled, a sword, five lances, a spear, a shield and two hundred shillings of silver: to the second class, one horse, one lance, one shield and sixty shillings: to the yeomen, a lance, a cross-bow and fifteen shillings. All these persons were quit and free of all summonses, county-courts, and military dues: but the two secondary classes owed suit and surface to the court of the _primarii_ (Swánmót), which held plea and gave judgment in their suits: in those of the _primarii_ themselves, the king was sole judge. The court of the Forest was to be held four times a year, and was empowered to administer the triple ordeal, and generally to exercise such a jurisdiction as belonged only to the higher and royal courts. The persons of the head-foresters were guarded by severe penalties; violence offered to them was punished in a free man with loss of liberty, in a serf with loss of the hand; and a second offence entailed the penalty of death.

-----

Footnote 148:

See these in Thorpe, i. 426.

-----

The offences against the forest-law were various and of very different degrees: the _ferae forestae_ were not nearly so sacred as the _ferae regales_, and as for the _vert_, it was of so little regard that the law hardly contemplated it, always excepting the breaking the king’s chace. To hunt a beast of the forest (_fera forestae_), either voluntarily or intentionally, till it panted, was punished in a free man by a fine of ten shillings: in one of a lower grade[149], by a fine of twenty: in a serf, by a flogging. But if it were a royal beast (_fera regalis_) which the English call a stag, the punishments were to be respectively, one and two years servitude, and for the serf, outlawry. If they killed it, the free man was to lose _scutum libertatis_[150], the next man his liberty, and the serf his life. Bishops, abbots and barons were not to be vexed with prosecutions for hunting, except they killed stags: in that case they were liable to such penalty as the king willed. Besides the beasts of the forest, the roebuck, hare and rabbit were protected by fines. Wolves and foxes were neither beasts of the forest nor chace, and might be killed with impunity, but not within the bounds of the forest, as that would be a breaking of the chace; nor was the boar considered a beast of venery. No one was to cut brushwood without permission of the _primarius_, under a penalty; and he that felled a tree which supplied food for the beasts, was to pay a fine of twenty shillings over and above that for breaking the chace. Every free man might have his own vert and venison on his own lands, but without a chace; and no man of the middle class (_mediocris_) was to keep greyhounds. A gentleman (_liberalis_[151]) might, but he must first have the knee-sinew cut in presence of the head-forester, if he lived within ten miles of the forest: if his dogs came within that distance, he was to be fined a shilling a mile: if the dog entered the precincts of the forest, his master was to pay ten shillings. Other kinds of dogs, not considered dangerous, might be kept without mutilation; but if they became mad and by the negligence of their masters went wandering about, heavy fines were incurred. If found within the bounds of the forest, the fine was two hundred shillings: if such a rabid dog bit a beast of the forest, the fine rose to twelve hundred: but if a royal beast was bitten, the crime was of the deepest dye.

-----

Footnote 149:

_Illiberalis_; perhaps a freedman, or a free man not a landowner. The
distinctions here are _liber_, _illiberalis_, _servus_.

Footnote 150:

This must denote _gentry_, something more than mere freedom.

Footnote 151:

The _mediocris_ is defined as twýhynde, the _liberalis_ as twelfhynde.
§ 33, 34.

-----

Such is the forest legislation of Cnut, and its severity is of itself evidence how much the power of the king had become extended at the commencement of the eleventh century. It is clear that he deals with all forests as having certain paramount rights therein, and it seems probable that this organization was intended to be established all over England. Still it is observable that he gives certain rights of hunting to all his nobles, reserving only the stags to himself, and that he allows every freeman to hunt upon his own property, so that he does not interfere with the royal chaces[152]. We may however infer that at an earlier period the matter was not regarded so strictly. A passage has been already cited[153] where Ælfred implies that a dependent living upon lǽnland could support himself by hunting and fishing, till he got bócland of his own. The bishops possessed the right in their forests—whether _proprio iure_ or by royal grant, I will not venture to decide—as early as the ninth century[154], and still retained it in the tenth[155]. And while the communities were yet free it is absurd to suppose that they allowed any one to interfere with this pursuit, so attractive to every Teuton, so healthy, so calculated to practise his eye and limbs for the sterner duties of warfare, and so useful to recruit a larder not over well stored with various or delicate viands.

-----

Footnote 152: