Chapter X: Anglo-Saxon Custom From the Norman Point of View

I. ANGLO-SAXON CUSTOM AS APPLIED TO NORMANS.

[Sidenote: The Kentish laws to be treated apart.]

In approaching the question of Anglo-Saxon tribal custom it is needful to make a clear distinction between the laws of the Kentish kings and the other Anglo-Saxon laws.

The laws of the Kentish kings are known only in the MS.--the Textus Roffensis--compiled or collected by Ernulf, Bishop of Rochester from 1115 to 1125, and are not included in the other collections containing the laws of King Alfred and Ine.

The evidence for Kentish custom seems, therefore, to be independent of that of Wessex or Mercia or Northumbria. Further, in the so-called ‘Laws of Henry I.’ at the conclusion of the statement of the customs as to homicide in s. LXXVI. it is distinctly stated that the wergelds in Kent differed much from those of Wessex both as regards _villani_ and _barones_.

It will therefore be necessary to examine the Kentish laws separately from the others.

[Sidenote: Laws of Henry I.]

On the whole, with regard to the others, it seems best to resort to the method of proceeding from the later to the earlier evidence and to begin with the so-called ‘Laws of Henry I.,’ as a Norman though unofficial view of what Anglo-Saxon custom was or had been before the Conquest.

[Sidenote: When a Norman was killed.]

It may be well to inquire first, what in the view of the writer took place, after the Conquest, when a Norman or stranger was killed, because this at once raises the question what should happen in the unavoidable absence of kindred.

Si Francigena qui parentes non habeat in murdro perimatur, habeat
precium natalis ejus qui murdrum abarnaverit: Rex de hundreto
ubi invenietur xl marc̄ argenti; nisi intra vii dies reddatur
malefactor justicie regis, et talis de quo possit justicia fieri.…

(lxxv. 6) If a Norman (_Francigena_) be murdered who has no
_parentes_, let that person have the price of his birth who made
known the murder. The King to have 40 marks of silver from the
hundred where he was found unless within 7 days the malefactor
be delivered up to the justice of the King in such a way that
justice can be had of him.…

Ad patrem vero, non ad matrem, generacionis consideracio
dirigatur: omnibus enim Francigenis et alienigenis debet esse rex
pro cognacione et advocato, si penitus alium non habeat.

(7) Consideration as to birth must be directed to the father, not
to the mother, for the King ought to be in the place of maternal
kindred (_cognatio_) and of advocate for the Norman or stranger
if he absolutely have no other.

Si ex parte patris parentes non habeat qui occiditur, et ex parte
matris habeat, quantum ad eum attinet, i. tercia pars weregildi
sui reddatur.

(8) If he who is killed has no _parentes_ on his father’s side
and he has on his mother’s side, let what appertains to her, viz.
one-third of his wergeld, be paid.

These clauses show that when a Norman or stranger was slain, in a certain way the king was to stand in the place of the absent kindred to see that justice was done.

The maternal kindred of the slain, if such were at hand, should receive the third of the wergeld which pertained to them, and so presumably the paternal kindred, if they alone were present, should take the two thirds pertaining to them, the king taking the share of the maternal kindred. In any case the right of the _parentes_ was recognised when they were present.

[Sidenote: When the slayer was a Norman.]

Next with regard to the payment of the wergeld in the case of the slayer being a Norman or a stranger:--

Si quis hujusmodi faciat homicidium, parentes ejus tantum were
reddant, quantum pro ea reciperent, si occideretur.

(8) If any one commit homicide of this kind let his _parentes_
pay so much wergeld as they would have received if he [the
slayer] had been killed.

Si ex parte patris parentes habeat, et ex parte matris non
habeat, et hominem occideret, reddant pertinentes ei quantum de
ejus interfeccione reciperent, i. duas partes weregildi sui.

(9) If he [the slayer] have _parentes_ on his father’s side and
not on his mother’s and kills a man, they pay for him as much as
they would have received had he been killed, _i.e._ two thirds of
the wergeld.

Si quis autem paterna cognacione carens male pugnet ut hominem
occidat, si tunc cognacionem maternam habeat, reddat ipsa terciam
partem were, terciam congildones, pro tercia fugiat.

(10) If any one who has no paternal relations shall fight so
wrongly as to kill a man and if he has maternal relations they
shall pay one-third of the wer, the _congildones_ one-third, and
for the other third let him flee.

Si nec maternam cognacionem habeat, reddant congildones dimidiam
weram, pro dimidia fugiat vel componat.

If he has no maternal relations the _congildones_ shall pay half,
and for half he shall flee or pay.

Si quis occidatur ejusmodi secundum legem pristinam, si parentela
careat, reddatur dimidium regi, dimidium congildonibus.

If any such person is killed, then _according to ancient law_, if
he have no kindred half shall be paid to the King and half to the
_congildones_.

[Sidenote: Recurrence to Anglo-Saxon custom.]

These clauses are valuable as showing that to meet the circumstances arising upon the Norman Conquest there was a recurrence as far as possible to ancient law and Anglo-Saxon custom.

[Sidenote: Protection of the kinless stranger.]

This was not the first time that the difficulty of absence of kindred had occurred and been formally recognised in England. The early Danish conquests had made special provisions necessary for the protection of the kinless stranger. And it was declared that ‘if any one did wrong to an ecclesiastic or a foreigner as to money or as to life, then should the king or the eorl there in the land and the bishop of the people be unto him in the place of a kinsman and of a protector (for _moeg_ and for _mund-boran_) unless he had another.’[210]

Again, as regards the position of the maternal relations and the _congildones_ of a stranger, it is clear that the writer of these so-called laws is copying and adopting what he finds in the Laws of King Alfred. In ss. 27 and 28 of the latter, in the absence of relatives the _gegildas_ of the slayer were to pay half the wergeld; and also, in the absence of relatives of the slain person, his _gegildas_ were to receive half the wergeld.

In both cases an artificial group of organised comrades, ‘gegildas’ or ‘congildones,’ seems to have been recognised as in part taking the place of kindred. And the importance of the provision of some such substitute for protection by the oaths of kinsmen is evident enough when it is considered that the ordeal of hot iron or water was the recognised alternative.

On the whole the clauses in these so-called laws relating to Normans and strangers adhere to the principle of the liability of kindred both paternal and maternal in cases of homicide, and this is the more remarkable because long before, especially in the Laws of Edmund, as will hereafter appear, a very strong tendency had been shown to restrict the liability in case of homicide to the slayer himself.

In the meantime the attempt to apply the Anglo-Saxon custom as to wergelds to Normans after the Conquest, taken together with the continued recognition of the liability of both paternal and maternal _parentes_, is a very strong proof that the solidarity of the kindred was not altogether a thing of the past. Tribal custom which at the Norman Conquest could be applied to the conquering class cannot be regarded as dead.

II. NORMAN VIEW OF WESSEX CUSTOM.

We pass on now to clause LXX. of the ‘Laws of Henry I.’ with the heading ‘Consuetudo Westsexe.’

[Sidenote: Wessex wergeld of twyhynde or villanus and twelve-hynde or thane.]

The amount of the wergeld according to Wessex law is thus stated:--

In Westsexa, que caput regni est et legum, twihindi, i. villani
wera est iiii lib.; twelfhindi, i. thaini xxv lib.

(lxx. i) In Wessex, which is the capital of the kingdom and of
laws, the wer of the twyhyndeman, _i.e._ of the villanus, is four
pounds; of the twelvehyndeman, _i.e._ of the thane, twenty-five
pounds.

The Anglo-Saxon and Norman lb. of silver was 240_d._, and thus the twelve-hyndeman’s wergeld of 25 lbs. was the same thing as the ancient Wessex wergeld of 1200 Wessex scillings of 5_d._ Four pounds was a rough equivalent of the twyhyndeman’s wergeld of 200 Wessex scillings.

A little further on in the same clause is the following quotation from Ethelred II.’s compact with Olaf.

Si Anglicus homo Dacum occidat, liber liberum, persolvat eum xxv
lib. vel ipse malefactor reddatur, et tantundem reddat Dacus de
Anglico si eum occidat.

(lxx. s. 6.) If an Englishman kill a Dane--a freeman a
freeman--let him pay for him 25 lbs. or the criminal himself
shall be delivered up. And let the Dane do the same if he kill an
Englishman.

The English and Danish typical freeman of this clause with his 25 lb. wergeld is clearly recognised in these so-called laws as the twelve-hyndeman and not the twyhynde man, who, though free, is identified with the ‘villanus.’

[Sidenote: Wife still belongs to her own kindred in respect of wergeld.]

In further sections of this clause regarding Wessex customs very important statements are made with regard to the position of the wife in case of homicide, showing (1) that if she committed homicide her own kindred were responsible for her crime and not her husband or his kindred; and (2) that in case of the murder of a wife the wergeld went to _her_ kindred and not to the husband or his kindred. In s. 12 of this clause is the following statement:--

Similiter, si mulier homicidium faciat, in eam vel in progeniem
vel parentes ejus vindicetur, vel inde componat: non in virum
suum, seu clientelam innocentem.

Likewise if a woman commits homicide let it be avenged on her or
on her children or _parentes_ or paid for from that side, not on
her husband, or innocent connections.

And in s. 13:--

Si mulier occidatur, sicut weregildum ejus est reddatur, ex parte
patris, sicut observamus in aliis. (14) Si pregnans occidatur et
puer in ea vivat, uterque plena wera reddatur. Si nondum vivus
sit, dimidia wera solvatur parentibus ex parte patris.

If a woman be killed, whatever be her wergeld, let it be paid
_ex parte patris_ just as we have said in other cases. (14) If
a pregnant woman be killed and her child be living let the full
wergeld of both be paid. If not yet living let half a wergeld be
paid [for it] to the _parentes ex parte patris_, [of the child].

The position of the wife under Wessex custom is further shown by the following:--

Si sponsa virum suum supervixerit, dotem et maritacionem suam,
cartarum instrumentis vel testium exhibicionibus ei traditam,
perpetualiter habeat, et morgangivam suam et terciam partem de
omni collaboracione sua, preter vestes et lectum suum; et si quid
ex eis in elemosinis vel communi necessitate consumpserit, nichil
inde recipiat.

(ss. 22-23). If the wife survive her husband let her have
permanently her dower and her ‘maritagium’ given to her by
written instruments or production of witnesses, and her
‘morgengift’ and a third part of all joint acquisition, besides
clothes and her bed, and let her receive nothing in respect of
what has been consumed in charity or common necessity.

Si mulier absque liberis moriatur, parentes ejus cum marito suo
partem suam dividant.

If a woman die without children her _parentes_ divide her share
with the husband.

These statements are valuable evidence that, in regard to the position of a wife, Anglo-Saxon custom was very nearly the same as Cymric custom and that of the Bretts and Scots. And they are the more important as stating in black and white what is only to be inferred from isolated statements in earlier laws.

We now pass to c. LXXVI., _De precio cujuslibet_, containing information as to the mode of procedure in the payment of wergeld.

After stating that if a man be slain he is to be paid for according to his birth, the clause proceeds thus:--

[Sidenote: Sureties for wergeld 8 of paternal and 4 of maternal kindred.]

Et rectum est ut homicida, postquam weregildum vadiaverit
inveniat wereplegios, sicut ad eam pertinebit, i. de thaino
debent dari xii wereplegii, viii de parte patris, et iiii de
cognacione matris; et cum hoc factum erit, elevetur inter eos pax
regis in omni weregildo, et debet halsfang primo reddi, sicut
were modus erit.

And it is right that the homicide after having given pledge for
the wergeld should find the wer-pledges pertaining to it.
From the thane: 12 were-pledges 8 _exparte patris_ and 4 _de
cognatione matris_, and this done shall be raised among them the
peace of the king in every wergeld. And first the _halsfang_
should be paid according to the nature of the wergeld.

Following the case of the twelve-hyndeman a little further we learn that:--

[Sidenote: Twelve-hyndeman’s halsfang.]

Twelf-hindus est homo plene nobilis, i. thainus cujus wera est
duodecies c sol. qui faciunt libras xxv, cujus halsfang sunt cxx
sol. qui faciunt hodie sol. l. Et non pertinet alii cognacioni
pecunia ista, nisi illis qui sunt intra genu.

The twelve-hyndeman is the man _plene nobilis_, _i.e._ the thane
whose wergeld is 1200 scillings which make 25_l._ His halsfang is
120_s._ which today equals 50_s._[211] [Norman], and it belongs to
no other relations than those who are _intra genu_.

This halsfang had to be paid on the 21st day from the giving of the pledge, and it seems to have been a token in recognition of guilt or earnest money to show that the wergeld would be paid.

[Sidenote: Manbot and fightwite and then wergeld.]

On the next 21st night from the payment of the halsfang the _manbot_ had to be paid, and on the 21st night after that the _fightwite_, and on the 21st night again the first payment of the wergeld.

Et sic omnibus parentibus dominisque emendacionibus iniciatis
persolvantur reliquum were, intra terminum quem sapientes
instituunt.

Thus for all the _parentes_ and lords, amends being set agoing,
the rest of the wergeld shall be paid during a term to be fixed
by the wise men (_sapientes_).

Turning next to the case of persons twyhynde born--_cyrlisci vel villani_--more details are given:--

After stating their wergeld to be four pounds, the clause proceeds:--

[Sidenote: Halsfang of the twyhynde class.]

Halsfange ejus sunt v marc. que faciunt xii sol. et vi den.: est
autem verbum Anglicum quod Latine sonat ‘apprehensio colli.’

Their halsfang is v marks which = 12_s._ 6_d._; and it is an
English word which in Latin means ‘_apprehensio colli_.’

There is evidently here an error. ‘V marc’ ought to be read 5 _mancuses_. The mancus was 30_d._ or 2_s._ 6_d._ Norman money and the halsfang therefore 150_d._ or 12_s._ 6_d._ Norman money, as stated in the following clause.

[Sidenote: Manbot and fightwite and then wergeld.]

Si quis ad iv lib. persolvendus occidatur, et ad id res veniat,
ut precio natalis ejus componendus sit, primo debent reddi xii
sol. et vi den. et in wera numerari: reddantur vero patri, vel
filio, vel fratri, vel qui propinquior est de patre, si predictos
parentes non habeat: si omnes istos habeat, et ipsi dividant
inter se.

(6) If any one is killed to be paid for at 4_l._ and it comes to
pass that the price of his birth has to be paid, first should
be paid [the halsfang of] 12_s._ 6_d._ to be reckoned in the
wergeld, and this is paid to the _father or son, or brother_, or,
failing these, whoever is the _nearest of kin to the father_. If
he has all these, they divide it between them.

A die qua wera vadiata est in xxi diem, sine omni excusacione et
dilacione, debet halsfang reddi, sicut premisimus.…

On the 21st day from the giving of the pledge, without any excuse
or delay the halsfang should be paid, as we have said.…

Inde ad xxi diem reddatur ipsius manbota: tunc ad xxi diem
fuytwhita: inde ad xxi diem reddatur ipsius were frumgildum, i.
vii sol. et vi den. ad explecionem xx sol.

On the 21st day after that, is to be paid the _manbot_, then on
the 21st day the _fightwite_, and then on the 21st day must be
paid the _frumgeld_ of the wergeld, _i.e._ 7_s._ 6_d._, to the
completion of 20_s._

Thus we learn that in the case of the twy-hyndeman the halsfang of 12_s._ 6_d._ and the frumgeld of 7_s._ 6_d._ make up the first 20_s._ of the wergeld of four pounds. The clause proceeds:--

Inde componat qui weram solvit, terminum de xx sol.: inde ponant
terminum suum parentes mortui de xl ovibus, que pro xx sol.
computantur: sint autem oves videntes et cornute, nulla parte
corporis diminute: ultimo termino reddatur equus, qui pro xx
sol. numerandus est. Hoc secundum legem et nostram consuetudinem
diximus: differentia tamen weregildi multa est in Cancia
villanorum et baronum.

After that he who pays the wergeld pays at another term 20_s._
Then the _parentes_ of the dead fix a term for 40 sheep which are
reckoned as 20_s._, but they must be sheep seeing and horned and
deficient in no part of the body. At the last term a horse is
given reckoned at 20_s._ This we have said according to law and
our custom. There is, however, great difference in the wergeld of
both _villani_ and _barones_ in Kent.

Thus both in the case of the twelve-hynde and the twy-hyndeman the halsfang is the first beginning of the wergeld, and whatever may be the exact meaning of the word, it is pretty evident that it was regarded as an admission of the wrong done and as a kind of earnest money that the rest of the wergeld would be paid.

But between the halsfang or earnest money and the making up of the first full instalment of the wergeld were the two other payments, the _manbot_ and the _fightwite_.

They have already been mentioned, but it is important to recognise what these two payments outside the wergeld mean.

We learn from c. LXXX. s. 6 what the fightwite was:--

[Sidenote: Fightwite was for breach of precinct.]

In cujuscumque terra fiat homicidium, qui socam et sacam suam
habeat, si homicida divadietur ibi vel cravetur, fihtwytam
recipiat.… Si occisus et locus unius domini sint, qui socnam suam
habeat manbotam et fihtwytam.

On whosesoever land the homicide may be committed, he who has
soc and sac shall if the homicide there be pledged or remanded
receive fightwite.… If the person killed and the place are of one
lord, let him who has the soc have [both] manbot and fightwite.

[Sidenote: Manbot was value to lord of person slain.]

It is clear from this that the fightwite was the payment due to the lord who had the ‘soc’ of the place where the homicide occurred and the wergeld was pledged. The manbot, on the other hand, was the payment to the lord whose man the person slain was. The lord of the soc might also be the lord of the man slain, in which case both fightwite and manbot were payable to him.

In c. LXIX. the manbot of the twy-hyndeman is stated to be 30_s._ (of 5_d._, _i.e._ 150_d._), and that of the twelve-hyndeman 120_s._ (600_d._) as in the Laws of Ine, s. 70.

In the so-called ‘Laws of Edward the Confessor’ c. XII. is the following:--

Qui scienter fregerit eam [pacem regis] … lege Anglorum suum
were, i. precium suum, et manbote de occisis erga dominos quorum
homines interfecti erant. Manbote in Danelaga, de vilano et de
socheman, xii oras; de liberis hominibus iii marcas. Manbote in
lege Anglorum, regi et archiepiscopo, iii marc̄ de hominibus
suis; episcopo comitatus, comiti comitatus, et dapifero regis, xx
soƚ; baronibus ceteris, x soliđ. Emendacionem faciat parentibus,
aut guerram paciatur, unde Angli proverbium habebant: Biege spere
of side oðer bere, quod est dicere, lanceam eme de latere aut fer
eam.

He who knowingly breaks the king’s peace … by the law of the
English pays his were, _i.e._ _pretium suum_, and _manbot_ of
persons killed to the lords whose men have been killed. Manbote
in Danelaga of villanus and socheman xii ores, of _liberi
homines_ iii marks.[212] Manbot in English law to the king and
archbishop iii marks for their men; to the bishop and earl of
a county and _dapifer_ of the king xx_s._: other barons x_s._
Let him make amends to the _parentes_ or suffer feud. Hence the
English have a proverb, ‘Buy off the spear or bear it.’

This chapter relates chiefly to the breach of the king’s peace on the king’s highways &c., but it clearly confirms the meaning of the _manbot_ as the payment to the lord for his man and as quite distinct from the wergeld to the _parentes_ of the slain.

[Sidenote: Manbot of socheman and villanus alike in the Danelaga.]

It may seem strange at first sight that according to this clause the manbot in the Danelaga of the villanus and the socheman should be alike, viz. 12 ores of silver, and further that the villanus and socheman should not be included as _liberi homines_, the manbot of the latter being double their manbot, viz. three marks or 24 ores.

* * * * *

The explanation of the equal manbot of villani and sochemen may partly be found in the tendency after the Conquest to class together all subordinate tenants rendering manual or agricultural services to the landlord as villani, and to ignore the differences in origin between the various classes of tenants of this kind. Still if at this point of our inquiry the relative positions of the sochmanni of the Danish districts and the villani of ordinary English manors were the question under discussion, it would be fair in explanation of the equality in manbot to point out how very nearly the services of the two classes seem to have corresponded so far as their value to the lord was concerned.[213]

The loss to the lord of the twelve-hyndeman was probably reckoned as of greater money value than that of the villanus or socheman, because of the higher grade or character of his military and judicial services as compared with the agricultural services of the villanus and socheman.

However this may be, these considerations confirm the importance of the distinction between the _manbot_ which varies according to the value or loss to the lord of the person slain, and is therefore payable to him, and the wergeld payable to the _parentes_ of the person slain which varied according to the grade in social rank in which he was born or to which he may have sometimes risen.

Further, this distinction between the wergeld and the manbot becomes all the clearer when we turn to the evidence given in the Laws of Henry I. regarding the custom of Wessex in respect of the homicide of slaves.

[Sidenote: When a slave is killed, or kills an Englishman.]

In c. LXX. the custom of Wessex is stated thus:--

Si servus servum occidat, domino reddantur xx sol. pro manbota,
parentibus interfecti servi xl den.

(s. 2) If a slave (_servus_) kills a slave xx_s._ [? of 5_d._]
is paid to the lord for _manbot_, to the _parentes_ of the dead
slave xl_d._

Si dominus occisoris nec pro eo reddit, nec servus habet unde
reddat, dimittere potest eum dominus, ut sibi caveat, nisi forte
cravetur dum secum est; quod si eveniat, eum repetentibus reddat
vel inde componat.

(s. 3) If the lord of the slayer pays nothing for him and the
slave has nothing to pay with, the lord can dismiss him so that
he [the lord] may protect himself from having the slave seized
while with him. But if this happen he shall hand him over to the
prosecutors or pay for him.

Si liber servum occidat, similiter reddat parentibus xl den. et
duas mufflas, et unum pullum mutilatum, domini servi xx sol. pro
manbota blodwitam vel fihtwitam sicut acciderit.

If a freeman kill a slave let him likewise pay to the _parentes_
xl pence and two ‘muffles’ and a capon. To the lord of the slave
xx_s._ [? of 5_d._] for manbot, [also] bloodwite or fightwite as
it happens.

Si servus Waliscus Anglicum hominem occidat, debet ille cujus
servus est reddere eum domino et parentibus, vel dare xl sol.
pro vita sua. Si hoc capitale nolit dare pro eo, dimittat eum
liberum, solvant postea parentes ejus weram illam, si cognacionem
habeat liberam. Si non habeat, observent eum inimici. Non cogitur
liber cum servo meggildare, nisi velit ei satisfaccionem facere,
nec servus cum libero.

If a _slave Waliscus_ kills an Englishman he whose slave he is
ought to give him up to the lord and the _parentes_ or pay
xl_s._ [? of 5_d._] for his life. If he does not choose to pay
this for his head let him set him free; then afterwards let his
_parentes_ pay his wergeld if he has free relations. If not
let them regard him as an enemy. No freeman is to be compelled
to join in payment with a slave unless he wishes to make
satisfaction for him nor a slave with a freeman.[214]

[Sidenote: Manbot of Wessex slave.]

Thus while under the Danelaga the equal manbot of the villanus and of the socheman was 12 ores or 240_d._, we learn from these clauses that the manbot of the ordinary slave under Wessex custom was 20_s._ _i.e._ (if of 5_d._) 100 pence, while that of the twy-hyndeman was, as we have seen, only 150 pence.

At first sight it may seem strange that the manbot or value to the lord of his villanus or socheman should be no greater, or even less, than that of his theow or slave. But a moment’s consideration will show that the value of the villanus and the socheman to the lord was mainly their week-work and services amounting to perhaps half their whole time, while that of the slave or theow was the value of his whole time and also that of a marketable chattel.

It may be noticed, too, how in the statements of Wessex custom some slight recognition is made of the _kindred_ of the slave, but the amount (40 pence) is so very small that it hardly can be reckoned as any real approach to recognition of family rights or rights of kindred belonging to the relatives of the slave.

In the ‘Laws of William the Conqueror’ the manbot of the slave is stated (perhaps in error) to be twice that of the freeman, and in the case of freemen a concession is made of 10_s._ of the wergeld to the _widow_ of the slain, who otherwise, not being of the same blood or kindred with her husband, would under tribal custom have received no part of the wergeld.

Si quis convictus vel confessus fuerit in jure, alium occidisse,
dat were suum, et insuper domino occisi, manbote, scilicet, pro
homine libero x sol. pro servo xx solid.

(s. vii.) If any one shall have been convicted of or have
confessed the slaying of another, let him give his wergeld and
over and above to the lord of the person slain, _manbote_: that
is, for a freeman x_s._ [? of 5_d._ or 12_d._] for a _servus_ xx
shillings.

Est autem were theni in Merchenelahe xx libr.; in Westsaxenelahe
xxv libr.; rustici autem c solid. in Merchenelahe, et similiter
in Westsaxenelahe.

(viii.) The wergeld, however, of the thane under Mercian law is
xx lb. [_i.e._ 1200_s._ of 4_d._], under West Saxon law xxv lb.
[_i.e._ 1200_s._ of 5_d._]; of the rustic c_s._ [? of 5_d._ or
12_d._] in Mercia and the same in Wessex.

De were ergo pro occiso soluto, primo vidue x sol. dentur, et
residuum liberi et consanguinei inter se dividant.

(ix) Of the wergeld thus paid for the slain person, first let x
shillings be given to the widow, and the rest let the children
and relations divide between them.

[Sidenote: Homicide of a kinsman.]

Finally, it is interesting to observe that according to the so-called ‘Laws of Henry I.’ tribal custom was still partly recognised in the method of dealing with the homicide of a kinsman.

In clause LXXV. is the following:--

Qui aliquem de parentibus suis occidet, dignis apud Deum
penitencie fructibus emendet; et in modo penitencie sit, si
sponte vel casu perpetravit; et excidat emendacio patrini sicut
manbota domini: si non pertineat ei utrumque, et aliorum
importunitate, quorum consanguineus est, cogatur eum reddere,
sapientum hoc judicio, secundum genus, componatur.

He who shall slay any one of his _parentes_, let him make amends
by fruits of penitence worthy before God. And let the measure of
the penance be according to whether he did it willingly or by
accident. And the correction of the sponsor falls just as the
manbot of the lord. If there does not pertain to him either the
one or the other and by the importunity of others whose kinsman
he is he shall be compelled to pay, let it be compounded for by
judgment of wise men whatever that may be.

The homicide of a kinsman was apparently still generally free from judicial interference or criminal law. The slayer is handed over to the Church and his punishment is spiritual penance. Even the manbot to the lord who has lost a man through his crime fails to be paid. But should there be a fear of trouble through the importunity of any of the kinsmen of the slain demanding compensation, then a compromise was to be effected by reference to the judgment of wise men. Tribal feeling is evidently not yet dead, although beginning in this matter to yield to the more modern view of individual responsibility for crime without regard to the question of kindred. There is at the same time recognition of the fact that the weakened tribal feeling is no longer always able to restrain the kinsmen from revenge in the case of wrong done within the kindred.