Chapter II: The Regalia, or Rights of Royalty (3)

This regulation was very likely forced upon him by his Witan, inasmuch
as it is also recorded in his laws, § 81. “Every one shall be entitled
to his hunting both in wood and field, upon his own property. And let
every one forego my hunting: take notice where I will have it
untrespassed upon, on penalty of the full wíte.”

Footnote 153:

See Vol. I. p. 312.

Footnote 154:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1086. Bishop Denewulf gave Ælfred forty hides at
Alresford, loaded with various conditions: among them, that his men
should be ready “ge tó ripe ge tó hunt[n]oðe,” that is at the bishop’s
harvest and hunting.

Footnote 155:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1287. Oswald bishop of Worcester, stating the terms on
which he let the lands of his see, includes among them the services of
his tenants at his hunting: “Sed et venationis sepem domini episcopi
[clearly _a park_] ultronei ad aedificandum repperiantur, suaque,
quandocumque domino episcopo libuerit, venabula destinent venatum.”

-----

However this may have been with the game, it is certain that the most important privileges were those of masting swine, and cutting timber or brushwood in the forests[156]. Grants to this effect are common, and it is plain that a considerable quantity of woods were in the hands of corporations, and even of private individuals, as well as of the Crown. How they came into private hands is not clear; some perhaps by bargain and sale, some by inheritance, some by grant, some no doubt by usurpation. The most powerful markman may at last have contrived to appropriate to himself the ownership of what woodland remained, though he was still compelled to permit the hereditary axe to ring in the forest[157]; and all experience shows that both here and in Germany monasteries were often founded in the bosom of woods, granted for religious purposes, out of what perhaps had once endowed an earlier religion, and which supplied at once building materials, fuel and support for cattle[158]. But even in these, it seems that the king, the duke and the geréfa interfered, claiming a right to pasture certain numbers of their own swine or cattle in them, and to give this privilege to others.

-----

Footnote 156:

The importance of pannage or masting was such as to cause the
introduction of a clause guarding it, in the Charta de Foresta,—a
document considered by our forefathers as hardly less important than
Magna Charta itself: see § 9. Domesday usually notes the amount of
pannage in an estate, and Fleta (Bk. ii. cap. 80) thinks it necessary
to devote a chapter to the subject.

Footnote 157:

The Oldsaxons in Westphalia called a distinguished class of persons
Erfexe, or Hereditary axes, from their right to hew wood in the Mark.
Möser (Osnab. i. 19) gives an erroneous derivation for this name, but
Grimm corrects him: Deut. Rechtsalt. 504.

Footnote 158:

“Dunhelmum veniens, locum quidem natura munitum, sed non facile
habitabilem invenit, quoniam densissima eum silva totum occupabat,”
etc. Transl. Sci. Cuðb. Bed. Hist. vol. ii. p. 302. The earliest
grants of land on which these establishments were placed, usually
state the land to be _silva_ or _silvatica_.

-----

In 845, Æðelwulf gave pasture to Badonoð for his cattle with the king’s beasts, apparently in the pastures of the town of Canterbury[159]. In 855, the same king gave his thane Dun a tenement in Rochester, together with two waggon-loads of wood from the king’s forest, and common in the marsh[160]. In 839 he licensed for Dudda two waggons to the common wood, probably Blean[161]; in 772, Offa granted lands to Abbot Æðelnoð, and added a perpetual right of pasture and masting in the royal wood, together with licence for one goat to go with the royal flock in the forest of Sænling[162]. Numerous other examples are supplied by the charters, which may be classed under the following heads: first, royal forests, as Sænling, Blean, Andred and the like, called _silvae regales_, and in which the king granted timber, common of mast and pasture or estovers: secondly, forest appertaining to cities and communities (ceasterwara-weald, burhwara-weald, _silva communis_), in which the king granted commons: thirdly, small woods, appurtenant to and part of estates, but not named, and the enjoyment of which is conveyed in the general terms of the grant, as _terram cum communibus utilitatibus, pascuis, pratis, silvis, piscariis_, etc.: lastly, private forests or commons of forest specially named as appurtenant to particular estates, or given by favour of the king to the tenant of those estates. To all these heads ample references will be found in the note below[163]. His right to deal at pleasure with the _silvae regales_ requires no particular notice, but the grants of pasture and timber in the forests of cities and communities[164] can only be explained by the assumption of a paramount royalty in the Crown. And that this was exercised in the private forests of monasteries, also appears from exemptions sometimes purchased by them. In 706, Æðelweard of the Hwiccas consented to confine his right of pasture to one herd of swine, and that only in years when mast was abundant, in the forests belonging to Evesham; and he released them from all claims of princes and officers, except this one of his own[165]. Similarly, with regard to timber, Ecgberht in 835 gave an immunity to Abingdon, against the claim of king or prince, to take large or small wood for his buildings from the forests of the monastery[166]. This right of the king to timber for public purposes was maintained and claimed till the time of the rebellion, and was a fertile source of malversation and extortion[167].

-----

Footnote 159:

Cod. Dipl. No. 259.

Footnote 160:

Cod. Dipl. No. 276. “Et decem carros cum silvo (_sic_) honestos in
monte regis, et communionem marisci quae ad illam villam antiquitus
cum recto pertinebat.”

Footnote 161:

Cod. Dipl. No. 241. “Duobusque carris dabo licentiam silfam ad illas
secundum antiquam consuetudinem et constituidem (_sic_) in aestate
perferendam in commune silfa quod nos saxonicae in geménnisse
dicimus.”

Footnote 162:

Cod. Dipl. No. 119. “Et ad pascendum porcos et pecora, et iumenta in
silva regali aeternaliter perdono; et unius caprae licentiam in silva
quae vocatur Saenling ubi meae vadunt.”

Footnote 163:

Royal forests in which common of pasture, or timber is given by the
king. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 77, 107, 108, 201, 207, 234, 239, etc. Civic and
common forests in which the king makes similar grants. Cod. Dipl. Nos.
96, 160, 179, 190, 198, 216, 219, etc. Private forests, conveyed in
general terms of the grant. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 16, 17, 27, 32, 35, 36,
80, 83, 85, etc. Private forests particularly defined as appurtenant.
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 80, 89, 138, 152, 161, 165, 187, 214, etc.

Footnote 164:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 47, 86, 96, etc.

Footnote 165:

Cod. Dipl. No. 56. “Excepto eo, ut si quando in insula eidem ruri
pertinente proventus copiosior glandis acciderit, uni solummodo gregi
porcorum saginae pastus regi concederetur; et praeter hoc nulli, neque
principi, neque praefecto, neque tiranno alicui, pascua
constituantur.” This right of the king’s was called _Fearnleswe_: “Et
illam terram ... liberabo a pascua porcorum regis quod nominamus
Fearnleswe.” Cod. Dipl. No. 277.

Footnote 166:

Cod. Dipl. No. 236. “Silva quoque omnis quae illi aecclesiae et
suburbanis eius suppetit, in omnibus causis sit libera, et non secetur
ibi ad regis vel principis aedificia aliqua pars materiae grossi vel
gracilis, sed ab omnibus defensa et libera maneat.” Compare Böhm. Reg.
Karol. Nos. 387, 1157, 1598.

Footnote 167:

From a speech of Lord Bacon’s against the abuses of purveyors, it
appears that those who were to purvey timber for the king, even as
late as the reign of James the First, used to extort money by the
threat of felling ornamental trees in the avenues or grounds of
mansion-houses. Barrington, Anc. Stat. p. 7, note.

-----

STRANGER.—To the king belonged also the protection of all strangers within his realm, and the consequent claim to a portion of their wergyld, and their property in case of death, a _droit d’aubaine_. This was a natural deduction from the principles of a period and a state of society in which every man’s security was founded upon association either with relatives or guildsmen: and as no one could have these in a foreign mark,—the associations being themselves in intimate connection with the territory,—it is obvious that the public authorities alone could exercise any functions in behalf of the solitary chapman. As general conservator of the peace, these necessarily fell to the king; but the duties and advantages which he thus assumed became in turn matter of grant, and were conferred by him upon other public persons or corporations.

The laws declare the king, earl and bishop to be the relatives and guardians of the stranger[168]; and the charters show that the consequent gains were alienated by him at his pleasure. In 835, Ecgberht gave the inheritance of Gauls and Britons, and half their wergyld, to the monastery at Abingdon[169]. Among these strangers, the Jews were especially mentioned. Anglosaxon history has not indeed recorded any of those abominable outrages upon this long-suffering people which fill the annals of our own and other countries during the middle ages; but there can be no doubt that a false and fanatical view of religion, if not their way of life and their accumulations, must have ever marked them out for persecution. Eichhorn has justly characterized the feeling which prevailed respecting them in all parts of Europe[170], and has remarked to the honour of the Popes that they were the first to preach toleration and command the attempt at conversion. But the utility of the Jewish industry especially in thinly peopled countries, and their importance as gatherers of capital, were ever engaged in a struggle against bigotry; hence the Jews could generally obtain a qualified protection against all but sudden outbreaks of popular fury. As these latter had mostly other deep-seated causes, the ruling classes may sometimes have seen without regret the popular indignation vent itself in a direction which did not immediately endanger themselves: but as a general rule, the Jews enjoyed protection, and were made to pay dearly for it. Both parties were gainers by the arrangement. Among the Saxons this could not be otherwise, for it was impossible for a Jew to be in a hundred or tithing as a freeman; and he would probably have had but little security in the household and following of an ordinary noble. The readiest and most effective plan was to place him, wherever he might be, especially under the king’s mundbyrd. Accordingly the law of Eádweard the Confessor declares the king to be protector of all Jews[171], and this right descended to his Norman successors. Similarly as the clergy relinquished their mǽsceaft or bond of kin, on entering into orders, the king became their natural mundbora[172].

-----

Footnote 168:

“If any one wrong an ecclesiastic or a foreigner, in anything touching
either his property or his life, then shall the king, or the earl
there in the land [_i. e._ among the Danes] or the bishop of the
people be unto him as a kinsman and protector: and let compensation be
strictly made, according to the deed, both to Christ and the king; or
let the king among the people severely avenge the deed.” Eádw. Guð. §
12. Thorpe, i. 174. See also Ranks. § 8. Æðelr. ix. § 33. Cnut, ii. §
40. Hen. I. x. § 3; lxxv. § 7.

Footnote 169:

Cod. Dipl. No. 236. “Similiter de haereditate peregrinorum, id est
Gallorum et Brittonum et horum similium, aecclesiae reddatur. Praetium
quoque sanguinis peregrinorum, id est _wergyld_, dimidiam partem rex
teneat, dimidiam aecclesiae antedictae reddant.”

Footnote 170:

Deut. Staatsr. i. 422, § 297. He cites an instruction of Margrave
Albrecht of Brandenburg an. 1462, which contains this Christian-like
provision:—“When a Roman emperor and king is crowned, he has a right
to take all they possess throughout his realm, yea and their lives
also, and to slay them, until only a little number of them be left, to
serve as a memorial.” Kings and populations, without being heads of
the holy Roman empire, assumed a similar right only too often.

Footnote 171:

Eádw. Conf. § 25. “Sciendum est quod omnes Judaei, ubicunque regno
sint, sub tutela et defensione regis ligie debent esse. Neque aliquis
eorum potest subdere se alicui diviti sine licentia regis; quia ipsi
Judaei et omnia sua regis sunt. Quod si aliquis detinuerit illos vel
pecuniam eorum, rex requirat tanquam suum proprium, si vult et
potest.”

Footnote 172:

Cnut, ii. § 40. Thorpe, i. 400.

-----

BRIDGE.—It is probable that no one could build a bridge without the royal licence, though I am not aware of any instance in the Saxon times: but I infer this from grants of the Frankish emperors and kings to that effect[173]. It is possible that this may have depended upon the circumstance that toll would be taken by the owner of such a bridge; but we may believe that other reasons concurred with this, and that the bridge originally had something of a holy character, and stood in near relation to the priesthood[174].

-----

Footnote 173:

Böhm. Reg. Karol. Nos. 88, 680, 1931.

Footnote 174:

It has already been noticed as remarkable that Pontifex, the
bridge-builder, should be the name for the priestly class. There are
many superstitions connected with bridges, and the spirit of the
bridge even to this day, in Germany, demands his victims as inexorably
as the spirit of the river. Deut. Mythol. p. 563. The passage in
Schol. Ælii Aristid. which speaks, according to a modern emendation,
of Palladia in connection with bridges, is hopelessly corrupt. But
Servius, Æneid, ii. 661, says the Athenian Pallas was called γεφυρῖτις
(not γεφυρίστης as the copies have), and this is confirmed by the
Interp. Virgil, published by Mai, where from her position on a bridge
the goddess is called γεφυρῖτις Ἀθηνᾶ. Pherecydes (No. 101) and
Phylarchus (No. 79) both appear to refer to this, if indeed the
proposed readings can be admitted. See Fragm. Hist. Græc. pp. 95, 356.
There was in very early times a _gens_ of γεφυραῖοι at Athens, but I
do not know if they had any priestly functions. They had the worship
of Δημήτηρ Ἄχαια, and were Cadmæans who had immigrated into Attica;
from among them sprung Harmodius and Aristogeiton.

-----

CASTLE.—In like manner we may doubt whether the kings did not gradually draw into their own hands the right to have fortified houses or castles, which we find them possessing in the Norman times, and which they extended to their adherents and favourites by special licence. In mediæval history, the fortification of their houses by the inhabitants of a city is the very first result of the establishment of a Communa, commune or free municipality; and the destruction of such fortifications the first care of the victorious count, bishop or king upon his triumph over the _outrecuidance_ of the burghers[175]. The clearest instance of the royal licence to a subject is a grant of Æðelræd and Æðelflæd to the bishop of Worcester, about 880, which recites that they built a burh or fortress for him, in his city, probably to defend his cathedral in those stormy days of Danish ravage[176]. In very early times there may have been fortresses belonging to private persons; this may be inferred from names of places such as Sulmonnes burh, _Sulman’s castle_; and under the later Anglosaxon kings, various great nobles may have obtained the privilege of fortifying their own residences, as for example we read of Pentecost’s castle and Rodberht’s castle under Eádweard the Confessor[177], an example very likely to have been followed by the powerful chieftains of Godwine’s, Sigeweard’s and Leófríc’s families; but the cases were probably few. Of course fortresses built and garrisoned by the king for the public defence are quite another matter: these were imperial, and to their construction, maintenance and repair, every estate throughout the land, whether of folcland or bócland, was inevitably bound, not even excepting the demesne lands of the king himself or of the ecclesiastical corporations.

Footnote 175:

Thierry, Lettres sur l’Hist. de France, p. 272. “Ainsi élevés de la
triste condition de sujets taillables d’une abbaye au rang d’alliés
politiques d’un des plus puissants seigneurs, les habitans de Vézelay
cherchèrent à s’entourer des signes extérieurs qui annonçaient ce
changement d’état. Ils élevèrent autour de leurs maisons, chacun selon
sa richesse, des murailles crénelées, ce qui était alors la marque de
la garantie du privilége de liberté. L’un des plus considérables parmi
eux, nommé Simon, jeta les fondements d’une grosse tour carrée, comme
celle dont les restes se voient à Toulouse, à Arles, et dans plusieurs
villes d’Italie. Ces tours, auxquelles la tradition joint encore le
nom de leur premier possesseur, donnent une grande idée de
l’importance individuelle des riches bourgeois du moyen âge,
importance bien autre que la petite considération dont ils jouirent
plus tard sous le régime monarchique. Cet appareil seigneurial n’était
pas, dans les grandes villes de commune, le privilége exclusif d’un
petit nombre d’hommes, seuls puissants au milieu d’une multitude
pauvre: Avignon, au commencement du treizième siècle, ne comptait pas
moins de trois cents maisons garnies de tours.”

This last fact rests upon the authority of Matthew Paris. On the
defeat of the Commune, the order was given to raze their
fortifications. The king himself, Louis le Jeune (A.D. 1155),
distinctly decreed in the sentence which he pronounced against them,
that within a given time the towers, walls and enclosures with which
they had fortified their houses should be demolished. But the burghers
had no such intention; “ces signes de liberté leur étaient plus chers
que leur argent;” and they continued to resist even after the Pope
himself had written to the king of France to demand the execution of
the decree. At length however the Abbot of Vézelay took the matter
into his own hands. “Il fit venir, des domaines de son église, une
troupe nombreuse de jeunes paysans serfs, qu’il arma aussi bien qu’il
put, et auxquels il donna pour commandants les plus déterminés de ses
moines. Cette troupe marcha droit à la maison de Simon, et ne trouvant
aucune résistance, se mit à démolir la tour et les murailles
crénelées, tandisque le maître de la maison, calme et fier comme un
Romain du temps de la république, était assis au coin du feu avec sa
femme et ses enfants. Ce succès, obtenu sans combat, décida la
victoire en faveur de la puissance seigneuriale, et ceux d’entre les
bourgeois qui avaient des maisons fortifiées donnèrent à l’abbé des
otages, pour garantie de la destruction de tous leur ouvrages de
défense. ‘Alors,’ dit le narrateur ecclésiastique, ‘toute querelle fut
terminée, et l’Abbaye de Vézelay recouvra le libre exercice de son
droit de juridiction sur ses vassaux rebelles.’” Ibid. pp. 291, 292.

Footnote 176:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1075.

Footnote 177:

Chron. Sax. 1052. “Ða geáxode Rotberd arcebisceop ⁊ ða Frencisce ðæt,
genamon heora hors ⁊ gewendon, sume west tó Pentecostes castele, sume
norð tó Rodberhtes castele.” However these were foreigners, a culpable
complaisance towards whom is a grievous stain upon Eádweard’s
otherwise amiable, though weak, character.

-----

ROADS and CANALS.—There is no very clear evidence respecting roads and canals, licence to make which was a subject of grant by the Frankish emperors[178]. But except as regarded the great roads which were especially the king’s, and the cross roads, which were the county’s, it is probable that there was no interference on the part of the state. Every landowner must have had the privilege of making private paths, large or small at his pleasure, by which access could be given to different parts of his own property. We do occasionally find roads mentioned by the name of the owners, and a common service of the settlers on an estate was the liability to assist in making a new road to the farm or mansion[179]. In an instance already cited we have seen an abbot of St. Augustine’s digging a canal with the object of diverting traffic from the haven of Sandwich. It may unhesitatingly be asserted that he claimed this right under his general power as a landlord, and not by any special grant for the purpose: this is evident from the whole tenour of the narrative.

-----

Footnote 178:

Böhm. Deg. Karol. Nos. 248, 316.

Footnote 179:

Rect. Sing. Pers. Thorpe, i. 432.

-----

PORTS.—Ports and Havens were, however, essentially royalties, and, as we have seen, could be granted to religious houses. They were naturally in the king’s hand, for this reason: in the early times of which we treat, the stranger is looked upon as an enemy, and every one who does not belong to the association for the maintenance of peace, is _primâ facie_ out of the peace altogether. This applies to sailors, as well as travelling chapmen who wander from mark to mark or county to county; and it applied with peculiar force to England after her coasts became exposed to repeated invasions from the North. Still as England could not subsist without foreign commerce, and early became alive to that great principle of her existence, a system of what we may call navigation laws was established. The bottoms of friendly powers were of course received upon terms of reciprocal favour, but even strange ships had the privilege of safety if they made certain harbours, designated for that purpose. At the treaty of Andover, in 994, Æðelræd and his witan agreed, that every merchant-ship that voluntarily came into port should be in the peace; and even if it were driven into port (whether by force or by stress of weather is not specified), and there were a friðburh, asylum, or building in the peace, in which the men took refuge, they and their ship and cargo should enjoy the peace[180]. It is hardly to be doubted that the king had the power of declaring what ports should be gefriðod or in the peace; and as this privilege would necessarily draw many advantages to any harbour that possessed it, we can reasonably conclude that it was made a source of profit, both by the king and those to whom he might think fit to grant it.

-----

Footnote 180:

Æðelr. ii. § 2. Thorpe, i. 284.

-----

WARDSHIP and MARRIAGE.—Wardship and Marriage appear to have been royalties; we must however believe them to have been confined to the children and widows of the thanes or comites, and to be a deduction from the principles of the Comitatus itself.

In the secular law of Cnut there is a series of provisions, extending from the 70th to the 75th clause, which can only be looked upon in the light of alleviations, and which in the 70th clause the king himself declares so to be. From the nature of the relief thus afforded, we may infer that the royal officers had exercised their powers in a manner oppressive to the subject. Accordingly the king and his witan proceed to regulate the voluntary nature of the _feormfultum_, the legal amount of heriot, the descent of property in the case of intestacy, and the kings’s guardianship of the same; they protect the widow and heirs against vexatious suits, by providing that they shall not be sued, if the lord and father had remained undisturbed, and lastly they regulate what appear to me to be the rights of wardship and marriage.

“And let every widow remain for a twelvemonth without a husband; then let her do her pleasure. But if within the year she choose a husband, let her forfeit the _morgengyfu_ and all the property she had through her first husband, and let her nearest kin take the land and property she had before. And let the husband be liable in his _wer_ to the king, or to whomsoever he may have granted it. And even if she have been taken by force, let her forfeit her possessions, unless she be willing to go home again from the man, and never become his again.... And let no one compel either woman or maiden to him whom she herself mislikes, nor for money sell her, unless the suitor will give something of his own good will[181].”

-----

Footnote 181:

Cnut, ii. § 74, 75.

-----

This of itself does not imply the royal right of marriage; but it becomes much more significant, when we learn that estates had been given to influential nobles, for their intercession with the king, on behalf of profitable alliances: then, the circumstances, combined together, seem to imply that Cnut desired to reform the miserable condition in which he found England, in the hope, no doubt, by such reform to consolidate his own power. The evidence of what may almost be called purchasing a marriage—though not in the truly gross and vulgar sense of such purchases among those whom writers of romances represent as the _chivalrous_ Normans,—is supplied by the monk of Ramsey: the instance dates from the middle of the tenth century. In mentioning an estate of five hides at Burwell, the chronicler adds: “This is the estate which—as we find in the very ancient English charters referring to it—a certain man named Eádwine, the son of Othulf, had in old times granted to archbishop Oda, as a reward for his pains and trouble in bringing king Eádred to consent, that Eádwine might have leave to marry the daughter of a certain Ulf, whom he desired[182].” This Ulf does not, I believe, occur among the signitaries to any of the charters, unless the name represent some one of the many Wulfgárs or Wulfláf’s of the time: but still we must suppose him to have been a person of consideration, since a large estate was given for his daughter’s marriage. In the absence of all details we cannot form any clear decision as to the royal right in this respect, though the balance of probability seems to me to incline to the view that the king had some right of wardship and marriage over the children and widows of his own thanes or sócmen. This seems to lie in the very nature of their relative position. With the widow or child of a free man, it is of course not to be imagined that the king could interfere; but in the time of Eádred there were probably not many free men whose wealth rendered interference worth the trouble.

-----

Footnote 182:

“Pro mercede solicitudinis et laboris, quo regem Ædredum ad consensum
inflexerat, ut ei liceret filiam cuiusdam viri Ulfi; quam
concupiverat, maritali sibi foedere copulare.” Hist. Rames. cap. 23.

-----

HEREGEATWE. HERIOT.—The general nature of Heriot has been explained in the First Book: it was there shown that it arose from the theory of the _comes_ having been originally armed by the king, to whom upon his death the arms reverted: and in imitation of this, Best-head or Melius catallum, distinguished in our law as Heriot-custom, was shown to have arisen. But whatever may have been its origin or early amount,—and its earliest amount was no doubt unsettled, depending upon the will of the chief who might take all or some of his thanes’ chattels at his pleasure,—in process of time it became assessed at a fixed amount, according to the rank of the person from whose estate it was paid. The law of Cnut[183] which determined this amount was probably only a re-enactment, or confirmation of an older custom, and appears to have been introduced to put an end to disputes upon the subject; it declares as follows:—

“Let the heriots be as fits the degree. An earl’s as belongs to an earl’s rank, viz. eight horses, four saddled, four unsaddled, four helmets, four coats-of-mail, eight spears, eight shields, four swords and two hundred mancuses of gold. From a king’s thane, of those who are nearest to him, four horses, two saddled, two unsaddled; two swords, four spears, four shields, a helmet, a coat-of-mail and fifty mancuses of gold. From a medial thane, a horse equipped, and his arms; or his healsfang in Wessex, and in Mercia and Eastanglia two pounds. Among the Danes, the heriot of a king’s thane who has his sócn[184] is four pounds: if he stand in nearer relation to the king, two horses, one equipped, a sword, two spears, two shields and fifty mancuses of gold. And from a thane of the lower order, two pounds.”

-----

Footnote 183:

Cnut, ii. § 72. Thorpe, i. 414.

Footnote 184:

A baronial court.

-----

The following are examples of heriots paid both before and after the time of Cnut.

The estate of Ðeódrǽd bishop of London and Elmham, about 940, paid, four horses the best he had, two swords the best he had, four shields, four spears, two hundred marks of red gold, two silver cups, and his lands at Anceswyrð, Illingtún and Earmingtún[185].

-----

Footnote 185:

Cod. Dipl. No. 957.

-----

In 946-956, the estate of Æðelwald the ealdorman paid four horses, four spears, four swords, four shields, two rings each worth one hundred and twenty mancuses, two rings each worth eighty mancuses (in all four hundred mancuses) and two silver vessels[186].

-----

Footnote 186:

Ibid. No. 1173.

-----

About 958, Ælfgár gave the king two swords with belts, three steeds, three shields, three spears, and two rings each worth fifty mancuses of gold[187].

-----

Footnote 187:

Ibid. No. 1223.

-----

The heriot of Beorhtríc, about 962, was, four horses, two equipped, two swords and belts, a ring worth eighty mancuses of gold, a sword of the same value, two falcons, and all his stag-hounds[188].

-----

Footnote 188:

Ibid. No. 492.

-----

The great duke Ælfheáh of Hampshire, 965-971, gave to Eádgár, who had married his cousin Ælfðrýð, duke Ordgár’s daughter, the following property: it is hard to say how much of it was heriot: six horses with their trappings, six swords, six spears, six shields, one sword worth eighty mancuses of gold, one dish of three pounds, one cup of three pounds, three hundred mancuses of gold, one hundred and twenty hides of land at Wyrð, and his estates at Cóchám, Dæchám, Ceóleswyrð, Incgeneshám, Æglesbyrig and Wendofra[189].

-----

Footnote 189:

Ibid. No. 593.

-----

Æðelríc, in 997, paid two horses, one sword and belt, two shields, two spears, and sixty marks of gold[190].

-----

Footnote 190:

Cod. Dipl. No. 699. This is very nearly the exact heriot. Æðelríc, who
was no friend to the king, probably meant to give him no doit more
than he could legally claim.

-----

Archbishop Ælfríc, 996-1006, devised to the king, as his heriot, sixty helmets, sixty coats-of-mail, and his best ship with all her tackle and stores[191].

-----

Footnote 191:

Cod. Dipl. No. 716.

-----

Ælfhelm paid four horses, two equipped, four shields, four spears, two swords, and one hundred mancuses of gold[192].

-----

Footnote 192:

Ibid. No. 967.

-----

Wulfsige paid two horses, one helmet, one coat-of-mail, one sword, one spear twined with gold[193].

-----

Footnote 193:

Ibid. No. 979.

-----

The majority of these cases belong to periods previous to Cnut’s accession, but they seem to imply an assessment very similar to his own. And in this view of the case, where the payment had become a settled amount due from persons of a particular rank, it became possible for women to be charged with it, which we accordingly find. In 1046 Wulfgýð commences her will by desiring that her right heriot may be paid to the king[194]: Æðelgyfu in 945 gave the king thirty mancuses of gold, two horses and all her dogs[195]: Ælflǽd left him by will her lands at Lamburnan, Ceólsige and Readingan, four rings worth two hundred mancuses of gold, four palls, four cups, four drinking-horns and four horses[196]: and lastly queen Ælfgyfu in 1012 left the king, six horses, six shields, six spears, one cup, two rings worth one hundred and twenty mancuses each, and various lands[197]. Taken in connection with the case of Wulfgýð, these bequests appear very like heriots. The heriots mentioned in Domesday agree with the details given above, and serve to show that the right had undergone no material alteration till the time of the Confessor[198]. That the Best-head or Melius catallum was paid to the king by his unfree tenants, as well as to other lords, is probable, but we have no instance of it[199]. By the law of Cnut, the widow was to have a reasonable time for payment of the heriot, and it was altogether remitted to the family of him who fell bravely fighting in the field before the presence of his lord.

-----

Footnote 194:

Ibid. No. 782.

Footnote 195:

Ibid. No. 410.

Footnote 196:

Ibid. No. 685.

Footnote 197:

Cod. Dipl. No. 721.

Footnote 198:

Domesd. Berks. “Tanias vel miles regis dominicus moriens pro
relevamento dimittebat regi omnia arma sua, et equum unum cum sella,
unum sine sella. Quod si essent ei canes vel accipitres,
praesentabantur regi, ut si vellet, acciperet.”

Footnote 199:

Fleta, ii. cap. 57, § 1, 2. “Imprimis autem debet quilibet qui
testaverit dominum suum de meliori re quam habuerit recognoscere, et
postea aecclesiam de alia meliori, et in quibusdam locis habet
aecclesia melius animal de consuetudine, in quibusdam secundum vel
tertium melius, et in quibusdam nihil: et ideo observanda est
consuetudo loci.” § 2. “Item de morte uxoris alicuius viri, dum vir
superstes fuerit, de toto grege communi secundum melius averium, quasi
de parte sua: sed hoc non nisi de permissione et gratia viri.” This
Melius catallum, Bestehaupt or Best-head was in fact a servile due:
but in this sense it was an alleviation; for strictly speaking the
lord could take the whole inheritance of his unfree tenant. In 1252
Margaret Countess of Flanders gave this alleviation to the serfs of
the crown: “Tous les serfs demeurant en Flandre, sous la justice
propre de la comtesse, furent affranchis de servitude en 1252, à
charge de payer par homme trois deniers, et par femme un denier
annuellement; et le droit qu’elle avait à la moitié des meubles en
catteux des serfs morts, fut reduit au meilleur cattel, [melius
catallum] autre que maison ou bête de somme.” Warnkönig. Hist. Fland.
i. 259. On this subject generally see Nelson, Lex Maneriorum, p. 154.

-----

It appears from what has been said in this chapter that the kings were provided very sufficiently with the means of maintaining their dignity: the benefactions which they were enabled to make out of the folcland relieved their private estates from the burthen of supporting the thanes, clerical and lay, who flocked to their service. Still there must have been a constant drain upon their possessions; and many of the regalia became lost to the crown by successive alienations. It is true that they were generally purchased at a high price, but in this case the king who sold them was the only gainer: he secured considerable sums for himself, but he impoverished all his successors to a much greater amount. The loans for which we occasionally find him indebted to his prelates, show how completely at times the crown had been pillaged, as well as who were the principal sharers in the plunder. The attempt to draw in lands and privileges which had once been alienated, was questionable in policy and harsh to the innocent holders; but it does not always seem to have been viewed impartially even by those least concerned; we may however now express our conviction that in many cases the alienations themselves had been made improperly and without sufficient authority; and, that if it was hard upon an abbot or bishop to lose what his predecessor had gained, it was very hard upon a king to be without what _his_ predecessor had unjustly and often illegally squandered.