Chapter XXIII: Section 40: gives similar evidence, in connection with the burg -or

_burh_-bryce or breach of the fence of the sacred precinct.

Cyninges burg-bryce bið cxx scill. Ærcebiscopes hund nigontig
scill. Oðres biscepes & ealdormonnes lx scill. Twelf-hyndes
monnes xxx scill. Syx-hyndes monnes xv scill. Ceorles edorbryce v
scill.…

The King’s burh-bryce shall be cxx scillings. An archbishop’s
ninety scillings. Any other bishop’s and an earldorman’s lx
scillings. A twelve-hyndeman’s xxx scillings. A six-hyndeman’s xv
scillings. A ceorl’s edorbreach v scillings.…

[Sidenote: The ceorl twy-hynde.]

Here again the ceorl takes the place of the twy-hyndeman, and the burh-bryce is graduated accordingly, the twelve-hyndeman’s being six times the ceorl’s.

King’s 120 scillings
Archbishop’s 90 ”
Ealdorman’s or bishop’s 60 ”
Twelve-hynde’s 30 ”
Six-hynde’s 15 ”
Ceorl’s edorbreach 5 ”

There may well be some delicate significance in the word _burh_-bryce being applied only to the twelve-hynde or six-hynde men, and not to the ceorl, as though the word _burh_ could not be applied to the ceorl’s homestead. His ‘flet,’ surrounded by its _edor_ or hedge, was perhaps too humble to be classed with the moated or walled enclosure of the _burh_ of the higher landed classes without a change of epithet. But there is nothing to show that the ceorl of this clause is not identical with the ordinary twy-hyndeman.

Lastly, in sections 10 and 18 the three classes are again described as twelve-hynde, six-hynde, and ceorlisc; while in sections 29, 30, and 31 they are described as twelve-hynde, six-hynde, and twy-hynde.

All this seems to show that for general purposes ‘twy-hynde’ and ‘ceorlisc’ were convertible terms.

[Sidenote: Ceorls must be mostly gafol-geldas.]

It can hardly be said that there is anything in King Alfred’s laws making a distinction between the twy-hynde class and the ceorlisc class. There seems to be nothing to suggest that the twy-hynde wergeld was confined to any particular section of the ceorlisc class. And therefore, so far as the laws of Alfred are concerned, the description of the twy-hynde class in the Compact with Guthrum as gafol-geldas equally dear with the Danish lysing would seem to apply generally to the ceorlisc class as a whole. And this being so, it would seem probable that, speaking broadly, by King Alfred’s time the chief practical division of classes had already resolved itself into that between the landed classes on the one hand and their gafol-paying tenants on the other.

It is quite true that under King Alfred’s laws there is the six-hynde class between the twelve-hynde and the twy-hynde or ceorlisc class; but his laws tell us nothing about this six-hynde class except what may be inferred from the fact that its members certainly were not included in the ceorlisc class. It can hardly be likely that King Alfred could, in his compact with Guthrum, have confined the twy-hynde class to the ‘ceorl who sits on gafol-land,’ leaving out the six-hynde class altogether, if, in his laws, he meant by the six-hynde class the ceorls who did not sit on gafol-land. It might have been possible to suppose that he used the word ‘ceorl’ in his laws in a wider sense, as including both twelve-hynde and twy-hynde, had he not introduced the six-hynde class between them and restricted the meaning of the word ‘ceorlisc’ to the twy-hynde class. He used it apparently to distinguish the twy-hynde from the other classes which by inference were not ceorlisc.

What the six-hynde class was and what the ceorlisc class was under West-Saxon law two centuries earlier than King Alfred’s day must be left to be discovered from the evidence of the Dooms of Ine.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: The mund-byrd or borh-bryce of various classes.]

In the meantime, the consideration of the position of the ceorlisc class having brought before us the penalties for breach of the precinct and for fighting within the precinct of the various classes, it may be well to consider also the evidence of King Alfred’s laws upon the mund-byrd or borh-bryce of what we may regard perhaps as the official classes, and in which apparently, at this date, even the twelve-hynde man had no part.

The mund-byrd or borh-bryce seems to be confined to those in official or judicial position.

Already in King Alfred’s laws we have lost the word ‘grith’ as we had already in Cnut’s laws lost the later phrase ‘sac and soc,’ but the tribal principle underlying the meaning of the words remains the same and becomes all the clearer as we go back in the evidence.

In s. 3, the borh-bryce and mund-byrd of the king are stated to be _five pounds of_ ‘mærra pæninga,’[241] an archbishop’s three pounds, and those of the ealdorman and lesser bishops two pounds, exactly as they were reported to have been in Cnut’s time in the ‘grith-law’ of the South Angles.[242]

[Sidenote: Its tribal origin.]

The almost indiscriminate use of the two terms in this clause suggests again the very slight distinction between them. The man who by giving his pledge placed himself artificially, so to speak, under the mund or protection of a person in a judicial position or authority and broke his pledge became guilty of borh-bryce or mund-byrd, it hardly mattered which. The penalty apparently included both crimes in one. If we might use the Brehon phrase it was the _eneclann_, or honour price of the person whose dignity was injured, which had to be paid.

But, as we have seen, these penalties were not only personal but also connected with the sanctity of what under Brehon law was called the ‘maigin’ or precinct. The Brehon tract which declares the extent of the ‘inviolable precinct’ of the ‘boaire-chief’ to reach as far as he can throw a spear or hammer from the door of his house, also states that those of higher chieftains extended by multiples of this according to their honour-price, so that the inviolable precinct of the _ri-tuath_ extended to sixty-four spear-casts from his door.[243] We have already quoted a fragment fixing the extent of the king’s ‘grith’ at ‘three miles and three furlongs and three acre breadths and nine feet and nine hand-breadths and nine barleycorns from the burhgeat where the king is.’[244]

[Sidenote: The ceorl or gafol-gelda had a flet the peace of which could be broken.]

Under King Alfred’s laws, as we have seen, the penalties for breaking into this precinct and committing crimes in it were payable to the person whose ‘peace’ was thus broken, and were not confined to the official classes as the mund-byrd and borh-bryce were. They went back to the tribal root-idea of the sanctity of the hearth and homestead of every tribesman. They extended from the king to the ceorl through all grades. The penalties for fighting within the precinct were practically the same in amount as those for the breaking into it. The penalty for fighting in the ceorlisc-man’s ‘flet’ was practically the same as that for breaking through his ‘edor’ into it.

When all these penalties are put side by side in the form of a table two points become evident.

First, how far removed the social position of the twelve-hyndeman was from that of the ealdorman. The penalty for fighting within his precinct is not much more than a third of that of the bishop and ealdorman, the inference being that his official position was much lower than the ealdorman’s.

Secondly, when we compare the figures in the three columns, while the burh-bryce and fightwite of the twelve-hynde, six-hynde, and twy-hynde classes are both graduated in proportion to their wergelds and very closely resemble one another, it is curious to notice that the fightwite is based upon a duodecimal and the burh-bryce on a decimal system of reckoning, as if they had been derived from different original sources. If King Alfred had originated them he would probably have made them alike.

In the following statement, collected from the several sections of King Alfred’s Laws for purposes of comparison and future reference, the amounts are stated in Wessex scillings of five pence.

+----------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------------+
| | Borh-bryce and | | |
| | mund-byrd | Burh-bryce | Fightwite |
+----------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------------+
| | (s. 3) | (s. 40) | |
| | | | |
|Of the king |(5 lbs) 240 _s._ | 120 _s._ |(s. 7) (in the |
| | | |king’s doom) |
| | | | |
|Of the archbishop |(3 lbs) 144 _s._ | 90 _s._ |(s. 15) 150 _s._ |
| | | | |
|Of other bishops and | | | |
| ealdorman |(2 lbs) 96 _s._ | 60 _s._ |(s. 15) 100 _s._ |
| | | | |
|Of do. in his ‘gemot’ | | |(s. 38) 120 _s._ |
| | | | |
|Of the twelve-hyndeman| | 30 _s._ |(s. 39) 36 _s._ |
| | | | |
|Of the six-hyndeman | | 15 _s._ |(s. 39) 18 _s._ |
| | | | |
|Of the ceorlisc man or| | | |
| twy-hyndeman | | 5 _s._ |(s. 39) 6 _s._ |
+----------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------------+

II. THE DIALOGUE OF EGBERT, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK A.D. 732-766. ECCLESIASTICAL OATHS AND WERGELDS.

There is a gulf of nearly two centuries in the West-Saxon evidence between the laws of Alfred and the ‘Dooms’ of Ine.[245]

We are taken at a leap, not only beyond all thought of the Northmen’s invasions, but also half a century behind another great epoch of European importance.

The Empire of Charlemagne formed a kind of watershed in Anglo-Saxon as in European history, and was marked, as we have seen, by a permanent change in the currency of the Western world.

[Sidenote: Position of Northumbria before the time of Charlemagne.]

The Courts of Offa and Egbert were intimately connected with the Imperial Court of Charlemagne, and the transition from the early Anglo-Saxon currency of sceatts to that of the heavier pence was a typical result of the influence of the Empire. It may be that the supremacy of Wessex under Egbert was indirectly another result of it.

The kingdom of Egbert did not extend over Northumbria, and Northumbria had its own independent connection with the Court of Charlemagne. It had its own mode of monetary reckoning in ‘thrymsas,’ and from the Northumbrian fragments already examined we have gained some glimpses into its ancient customs.

The document next to be examined refers to Northumbria, and, as it dates from the period immediately preceding the time of Charlemagne, it helps to bridge over the gulf between the Laws of Alfred and Ine.

[Sidenote: Egbert, Archbishop of York, A.D. 750.]

It is in the form of a Dialogue or set of questions put to Egbert, Archbishop of York, by his priests, with his answers thereto, and its date may be about A.D. 750.

Egbert, Archbishop of York, was an important figure in Anglo-Saxon history. The brother of Eadbert, the Northumbrian king, the recipient on his accession to his episcopal dignity of the remarkable letter of Bede describing the religious anarchy of his diocese, the founder of the great school at York, in which his pupil Alcuin was educated and from which he migrated to the Court of Charles the Great, Egbert was an important personage, and the centre of beneficent influence in the Northumbrian church and kingdom.

[Sidenote: His Roman and clerical point of view.]

Moreover, this document, so far as it goes and as regards the matters mentioned in it, deals with the questions raised by it avowedly from an ecclesiastical point of view. The great ecclesiastic comes down upon his diocese from a wider world. He had been educated and ordained deacon at Rome. And just as in the monastic rules of St. Benedict Roman weights and measures were adhered to, so when this archbishop has to speak of money matters, ignoring all local currencies, he still thinks and speaks and calculates in the terms of the Roman Imperial currency, and not in Anglo-Saxon sceatts and scillings, or in the thrymsas of Northumbrian usage.

The Dialogue contains several interesting clauses.

[Sidenote: What to be the value of the oaths of clerics.]

The first to be noticed is in answer to the question as to the value to be attached to the oaths of the bishop, priest, deacon, and monk. The reply is:--

Ordines supradicti, secundum gradus promotionis, habeant
potestatem protestandi: presbiter secundum numerum cxx
tributariorum; diaconus vero juxta numerum lx manentium; monachus
vero secundum numerum xxx tributariorum, sed hoc in criminali
causa. Cæterum si de terminis agrorum oritur altercatio,
presbitero liceat juramenti sui adtestatione terram videlicet
unius tributarii in jus transferre æcclesiæ. Duobus quoque
diaconis id ipsum conceditur. Testificatio vero trium monachorum
in id ipsum sufficiat.

The said orders according to their grade of promotion shall
have power of protestation. The priest to the number of cxx
tributarii; the deacon up to the number of lx ‘_manentes_;’
the monk to the number ‘xxx tributarii,’ _i.e._ in a criminal
cause. But if the dispute has arisen about the boundaries of
lands it shall be lawful to the priest on attestation of his
oath to transfer, into the right of the church, land, _i.e._ of
one _tributarius_. To two deacons also the same is conceded. Let
attestation of three monks suffice for the same.

Now, it seems very unlikely that such a question as this about the value of oaths should be asked of the Archbishop if it had already been settled by law in Northumbria. And so we seem to see him here making a claim and laying down a principle for the first time in Northumbria the following of which resulted in his priests being put upon a par with the secular thane as regards the value of their oaths.

[Sidenote: In Mercia priest’s oath of same value as that of the thane.]

The principle that one man’s oath was worth more than another’s we have seen already stated in the undated fragment on ‘Mercian oaths,’ which very possibly represented ancient tradition.

A twelve-hynde oath stands for six ceorls’ oaths, because if a
man should avenge a twelve-hyndeman he will be fully avenged on
six ceorls and his wergeld will be six ceorls’ wergelds (p. 360).

And, further, the right of the priest to be put on equal footing with the thane we have seen recognised in another fragment.

A mass priest’s oath and a secular thane’s are in English law
reckoned of equal value, and by reason of the seven church
degrees that the mass priest through grace of God has acquired,
he is worthy of thane-right (p. 361).

The same principle was recognised in the further fragment on the North People’s wergelds.

The usual statement in Continental and Anglo-Saxon laws as regards compurgation is that a man must clear himself by his oath and the oaths of so many oath-helpers. But in the Laws of Ine, with which the Archbishop was doubtless conversant, another method was followed in some cases. A man must clear himself, not with the oaths of so many oath-helpers, but with an oath of so many _hides_. The claim of the Archbishop seems to favour the view, suggested but hardly established by various passages in the Laws of Ine, that the twelve-hyndeman’s oath was reckoned at 120 hides.[246]

[Sidenote: Oaths of so many hides.]

All that one can say is that the Archbishop in claiming that the Northumbrian priest’s oath should be regarded as one of ‘120 tributarii’ seems to have had in his mind what was afterwards generally conceded, _i.e._ that the priest should be put, in social position, on a par with the thane or twelve-hynde man. Moreover, the Archbishop’s use in this connection of the phrase ‘so many _tributarii_’ or ‘_manentes_,’ instead of so many ‘hides,’ is interesting. It helps us to understand that the hide as used in the Laws of Ine was probably the same fiscal or gafol paying unit as the _familia_ of Bede.

Another clause in this interesting document bears more directly upon the question of homicide, and it is valuable as giving information quite independent of the Laws.

It is the answer of the Archbishop to the question, ‘What if a layman shall kill a cleric or a monk, whether the _precium sanguinis_ according to the law _natalium parentum_ shall be paid to his near relations or whether his _seniores_ are to be satisfied by a larger amount--which does your Unanimity sanction?’

The reply is as follows:--

[Sidenote: The wergelds of the clergy to be paid to the church.]

Quicunque vero ex laicis occiderit episcopum, presbiterum,
vel diaconum, aut monachum, agat pœnitentiam secundum gradus
pœnitentiæ constitutos, et reddat precium æcclesiæ suæ; pro
episcopo secundum [placitum] universalis consilii, pro presbitero
octingentos siclos, pro diacono sexingentos, pro monacho vero
quadringentos argenteos; nisi aut dignitas natalium vel nobilitas
generis majus reposcat precium. Non enim justum est, ut servitium
sanctæ professionis in meliori gradu perdat quod exterior vita
sub laico habitu habuisse jure parentum dinoscitur.

Whoever indeed of laymen shall have killed a bishop, priest, or
deacon or monk shall do penance according to the constituted
scale of penitentials, and let him pay the price to his
church--for a bishop according to [the decision] of a general
Council:

For a priest 800 sicli
For a deacon 600 sicli
But for a monk 400 argentei[247]

unless dignity of birth or nobility of kindred demand a greater
_precium_. For it is not just that service in a holy profession
in a higher grade should lose what secular life in lay dress may
be recognised to have by right of parentage.

The wergelds here stated for the clergy are stated in _sicli_ and _argentei_. The Roman argenteus, as we have seen (after Nero’s time), was the drachma of silver, and the siclus was a didrachma or quarter of an ounce. The Archbishop, therefore, was claiming 200 ounces of silver as the wergeld of his Northumbrian priest.

[Sidenote: Stated in Roman silver currency.]

Whether he knew it or not, this amounted in value to 4000 sceatts (of 20 to the ounce), _i.e._ 800 Wessex and 1000 Mercian scillings. So that in claiming for his priest a wergeld of 200 ounces of silver he does not seem to have had in his mind either the Mercian or the Wessex twelve-hyndeman’s wergeld, of 1200 scillings, of 5 or 4 sceatts, but, possibly, as we shall see, a Kentish wergeld of 200 Kentish scillings of 20 sceatts.

[Sidenote: Priest’s wergeld to be 200 Roman ounces of silver.]

The Archbishop’s claim falling short of what was ultimately granted in Northumbria is curious as showing that Northumbrian law, at this time, before the inroads of the Norse invaders, was still unsettled, and that the Archbishop may have been influenced by Kentish rather than by West-Saxon or Mercian precedents. It was after another century, and after the Norse invasion and conquest, that the wergelds of the mass-thane and secular-thane in the ‘North People’s Law’ were stated to be alike at 2000 thrymsas, or 1200 Wessex shillings. How much earlier the equation was made in Northumbria we know not.

The next clause to be noticed is that in reply to question viii., viz. ‘If any monks shall mix themselves up with sacrilege, should _you_ now prosecute, if the avengement of the crime pertains to laymen who are their relations?’

The reply is as follows:--

[Apostolus dicit,] omnes causas æcclesiæ debere apud sacerdotes
dijudicari. Si qui vero æcclesiastici crimen aliquod inter
laicos perpetraverint, homicidium, vel fornicationem, vel furtum
agentes, hos placuit a secularibus in quos peccaverunt omnimodo
occupari; nisi animo fuerit æcclesiæ pro talibus satisfacere.
Laici vero qui sacrilega se contagione miscuerint velatis, non
eodem modo quo lex publica fornicarios puniri percensuit, set
duplicato xxx siclorum pecunia, hoc est lx argenteos volumus dare
ecclesiæ adulterantes, quia graves causæ graviores et acriores
querunt curas.

The Apostle declares that all ecclesiastical causes should be
settled by priests. But if any ecclesiastics have perpetrated any
crime among laymen, homicide or fornication or theft, it has been
decreed that they be followed up in every case by laymen against
whom they have sinned, unless it be the intention of the Church
to make satisfaction for them. But laymen who shall have joined
in sacrilegious intercourse with nuns [shall be dealt with] not
in the same manner as the public law decrees fornicators to be
punished, but _double_--by the sum of xxx _sicli_--_i.e._ we wish
adulterers to give to the Church lx _argentei_, because severe
cases require severer and sharper cures.

This passage once again makes it clear that in this ecclesiastical document of the Archbishop of York 30 sicli = 60 argentei or Roman drachmæ.

[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical causes to be settled by priests.]

And, apart from this monetary question, the clause is interesting as marking the claim that all ecclesiastical causes should be settled by the clergy themselves.

In case of crime by an ecclesiastic against a layman the Church reserved the right to stop the layman’s prosecution by payment of the wergeld or other satisfaction. At the same time the Church was to claim double compensation from laymen committing crime against nuns. It is impossible to disassociate this document from the letter of Bede describing the religious anarchy of the diocese caused by the abuses of the loose monastic system in vogue, and urging the newly appointed prelate, who was not yet Archbishop, to undertake their energetic reformation.

[Sidenote: The Church succumbed to the wergeld system.]

But for the present purpose the real worth of these statements is the independent evidence they give of the continued strength of the wergeld system and the force of tribal custom in the Northumbrian kingdom before the Norse invasions. The sense of individualism in Christianity was opposed to the solidarity and joint responsibility of the kindred. But instead of fighting against the wergeld system the Church had actually succumbed to it, and adopted it for its own advantage, placing a money price upon the blood of its several ecclesiastical ranks, making the value of the priest four times that of the monk.

The system of compurgation, again, was a part of tribal usage. The Church adopted it and graduated the worth of the oaths of its various grades according to secular usage, making the oath of the priest in evidence four times the value of that of the monk.

In other words, in England, as on the Continent, the clergy, instead of combating tribal custom in these matters, took their place in the order of secular rank according to their several grades, bishops claiming the wergeld of princes, and priests that of thanes, with, however, the obviously useful reservation that if their secular rank by parentage and birth should be higher than their ecclesiastical grade, the higher wergeld should be theirs.

All this we see in the course of being introduced into Northumbrian usage in answer to local inquiry and local needs, upon the authority of perhaps the very wisest of Saxon prelates.

The wisdom of such accommodation as this on the part of the Church to pagan tribal usage is not the matter in question. The point of the evidence is the proof it gives of the continued strength of tribal usage in England after many generations of occupation and settlement.

III. THE DOOMS OF INE, A.D. 688-725.

The Dooms of King Ine occupy so important a position as the earliest direct information upon Anglo-Saxon custom apart from Kent that they demand careful separate study.

We ought to be able to learn something from them of the aim and spirit of legislation in Wessex two centuries before King Alfred added them to his laws.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Ine’s Dooms apart from Alfred’s.]

There is no reason, I think, to suspect that the text of the Dooms of Ine was altered by Alfred. The words already quoted in which he says that in his Dooms he collected together what he thought ‘rightest’ of those things which he met with of the days of Ine and Offa and Ethelbert without adding much of his own are quite consistent with his preservation of King Ine’s laws as a whole, though in some points differing from his own.[248]

King Ine came to the throne in A.D. 688, and he states in his preamble that he issued his ‘Dooms’ with the counsel of Cenred his father and of the Bishops of Winchester and London (who had already had twelve or thirteen years’ experience in their sees) and also with the counsel of all his _ealdormen_ and his Witan:--

ꝥ te ryht æw ⁊ ryhte cyne-domas þurh ure folc gefæstnode ⁊
getrymede wæron, ꝥ te nænig ealdormonna ne us under-geþeodedra
æfter þam wære awendende þas ure domas.

So that just law and just kingly dooms might be settled and
established throughout our folk; so that none of the _ealdormen_
nor of our subjects should hereafter pervert these our dooms.

[Sidenote: The ealdorman a shire-man in judicial position.]

We mark, then, at once that at this period the most prominent public official was the _ealdorman_. From clause 8 and clause 9 we learn that private revenge for a wrong was forbidden before justice had been demanded from a ‘“scir-man” or other judge.’ And that the ealdorman was a shire-man we learn from another clause (clause 36).

Seþe þeof gefehð oþþe him mon gefongenne agifð ⁊ he hine þonne
alæte oþþe þa þiefðe gedierne forgielde þone þeof [be] his were.

(36) Let him who takes a thief or to whom one taken is given,
and then lets him go, or conceals the theft, pay for the thief
according to his wer.

Gif he ealdormon sie þolie his scire buton him kyning arian wille.

If he be an _ealdorman_ let him forfeit his ‘shire’ unless the
King be merciful to him.

Here, as in Alfred’s Laws, the ealdorman is an official with judicial jurisdiction. And we learn more about his social status as compared with that of other classes from s. 45.

[Sidenote: Burg-bryce of various classes.]

Burg-bryce mon sceal betan c. xx scill. kyniges ⁊ biscepes þær
his rice bið. Ealdormonnes lxxx scill. Kyniges þegnes lx scill.
Gesiðcundes monnes land-hæbbendes xxxv scill. ⁊ be þon ansacan.

(45) Bot shall be made for the _King’s_ burg-bryce, and a
bishop’s where his jurisdiction is, with cxx shillings; for an
_ealdorman’s_ with lxxx shillings; for a _King’s thane’s_ with lx
shillings; for that of a _gesithcund_-man having land with xxxv
shillings: and _according to this let them make legal denial_.

The _burg_-bryce is the same thing as the _burh_-bryce--the breaking into the _burh_. And if we compare the ‘bots’ of this clause with the _burh_-bryce of King Alfred’s s. 40 (_supra_, p. 372) we see that he was not merely copying King Ine’s clause. Nearly as they may resemble one another, there are marked differences between the two clauses.

The king’s burh-bryce in King Ine’s Laws is the same as King Alfred’s. The ealdorman’s is eighty scillings instead of sixty. The king’s thane takes the ealdorman’s place with sixty, and the gesithcund-man’s burh-bryce in King Ine’s Laws is practically the same as the twelve-hyndeman’s in King Alfred’s laws.

[Sidenote: The gesithcund-man’s judicial position.]

The gesithcund-man we have met before in one of the fragments of early English law, but so far as relates to Wessex he appears in the Dooms of Ine for the first and last time, and we shall have to consider by-and-by how far he is the same person as the twelve-hyndeman. But for the present it is sufficient to note that he is mentioned along with the king’s thane and the ealdorman apparently in order to state the extent to which his oath was to be taken as valid in judicial evidence, or whatever is meant by the words ‘and according to this make legal denial.’

[Sidenote: Laws as to theft.]

The chief obstacle to the maintenance of the peace seems to have been the frequency of thefts and homicide of all kinds. The connection between homicide and theft is the subject of several clauses in the Laws of Ine. And as they bring into notice the liability of the kindred it may be well to consider them in order.

These are some of the clauses in the Laws of King Ine with reference to the slaying of a thief:--

Gif þeof sie gefongen swelte he deaðe oþþe his lif be his were
man aliese.

(12) If a thief be seized let him perish by death or let his life
be redeemed according to his wer.

Cierlisc mon gif he oft betygen wære gif he æt siþestan sie
gefongen slea mon hond [of] oþþe fot.

(18) A ceorlisc man, if he have often been accused, if he at last
be seized, let his hand or foot be cut off.

Gif feorcund mon oþþe fremde butan wege geond wudu gonge & ne
hrieme ne horn blawe, for þeof he bið to profianne oþþe to
sleanne oþþe to aliesanne.

(20) If a far-coming man or a stranger journey through a wood
out of the highway and neither shout nor blow his horn he is to
be held for a thief either to be slain or redeemed.

[Sidenote: The ge-geldas and kindred of the thief.]

Then comes the question what happens if a man should seize a thief and slay him as a thief. The next clause goes on to state that in the case of the thief slain in the wood the slayer must declare that he slew the man for a thief, and then neither the lord nor the _ge-gildas_ of the slain could demand a wergeld. But if he should conceal the slaying and it became known after a time, the way was open for the kindred of the supposed thief to exculpate him by oath and so claim his wergeld, from the slayer.

Where there is no concealment, the kindred of the thief must swear that there shall be no vengeance on him for delivering up the thief.

Se [þe] þeof gefehð [he] ah x. scill. ⁊ se cyning þone þeof ⁊ þa
mægas him swerian aðas unfæhða.

(28) He who seizes a thief shall have ten scillings and the king
the thief; and let the kindred [of the thief] swear to him oaths
of ‘unfæhthe.’

If the man who had seized the thief let him go he was liable to pay ‘wite’--and if, as we have seen, an ‘ealdorman’ did so it was at the risk of losing his ‘shire.’

Theft seems to have been an increasing crime, for further on in Ine’s Laws there are repetitions of some of these clauses, with slight additions, showing that the Dooms of Ine were added to from time to time (s. 35 and s. 27).

[Sidenote: The ceorlisc and the gesithcund classes.]

We have seen how severe a penalty was attached to the crime against the king’s peace of letting a thief once seized escape. The following clause is still more severe upon any one harbouring a fugitive thief or other outlaw, and it introduces again the division of classes as regards wergelds into gesithcund and ceorlisc, but without mentioning the wergelds of each class.

Gif mon cierliscne monnan flieman-feorme teo be his agnum were
geladige he hine. Gif he ne mæge gielde hine [be] his agenum were
⁊ se gesiðmon [eac] swa be his were.

(30) If a man accuse a ceorlisc-man of harbouring a fugitive
[thief?] let him clear himself according to his own wer. If he
cannot, let him pay for him according to his own wer, and the
gesith-man in like manner according to his wer.

This ‘clearing himself according to his own wer’ alludes evidently to the oath of himself and his oath-helpers and shows that the oath required to clear the gesithcund-man from the charge was a greater one than that required to clear a ceorlisc-man. This was doubtless the case throughout, but apparently it had become needful to strengthen the oath of both classes. The following clause required that in the oath of both the gesithcund and ceorlisc-man in denial of homicide there should be among the oath-helpers ‘a King’s oath of 30 hides.’

[Sidenote: The oaths to be in their hyndens of co-swearers.]

Seþe bið wer-fæhðe betogen ⁊ he onsacan wille þæs sleges mid aðe
þonne sceal bion on þære hyndenne an kyning [æðe] be xxx hida swa
be gesiðcundum men swa be cierliscum swa hwæðer swa hit sie. Gif
hine mon gilt þonne mot he gesellan on þara hyndenna gehwelcere
monnan [and, _but not in H_] byrnan ⁊ sweord on ꝥ wer-gild gif he
þyrfe.

(54) He who is charged with _wer-fæhthe_ and he is willing to
deny the slaying on oath; then shall there be in the ‘hynden’ one
king’s oath of 30 hides as well for a gesithcund-man as for a
ceorlisc-man whichever it may be. If he has to pay him, then may
he give the man of any one of those ‘hyndens’ a coat of mail and
a sword in the wergeld if he need.

The last part of the clause is ambiguous, but on the whole, taking into account the Latin of the ‘Quadripartitus’ and Liebermann’s suggested translation and the difficulty of the various other suggested readings, I think it is most probable that the meaning may be, that if the man charged cannot get the required ‘king’s oath’ or that of another hynden without paying for it, he may give ‘a coat of mail and a sword’ to the ‘hynden’ if it should be needful. We may have to recur to this section, but without attempting to build anything upon this more than doubtful addition to it. Nothing important, I think, turns upon it.

[Sidenote: Both classes must follow to the fyrd.]

The following is important as showing that both the gesithcund and ceorlisc classes were under the military obligation to follow to the fyrd.

Gif gesiðcund mon landagende forsitte fyrde geselle cxx scill. ⁊
þolie his landes, unlandagende lx scill. cierlisc xxx scill. to
fierdwite.

(51) If a gesithcund-man owning land neglect the fyrd, let him
pay 120_s._ and forfeit his land, one not owning land 60_s._; a
ceorlisc-man 30_s._ as fyrd-wite.

The recurrence in so many clauses of Ine’s Laws of the division of classes into gesithcund and ceorlisc leads to the conclusion that it must have been a very prominent one.

It was accepted in the Laws of Ine as a fact existing and of common knowledge, with no mark upon it of novelty or innovation. The distinction was evidently ancient and radical, and yet the word ‘gesithcund’ is not met with in any later laws.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Mention of twelve-, six-, and twy-hynde classes.]

Throughout the 76 clauses of the Laws of Ine only one makes direct mention of the division of classes into twelve-hynde and twy-hynde, the distinction so generally made in the later laws, and in this clause, as in King Alfred’s Laws, the six-hynde class also appears:--

Aet twy-hyndum were mon sceal sellan to mon-bot xxx scill. æt
vi-hyndum lxxx scill. æt twelf-hyndum c.xx.

(70) With a twy-hyndeman’s wer shall be given as man-bot xxx
scillings with a six-hynde’s lxxx scillings, [? lx s.], with a
twelve-hynde’s cxx scillings.[249]

The man-bot was, as we have seen, the payment to a lord for the loss of his man.

There is an indirect mention of wergelds in s. 34, which states that any one who has been in a foray in which a man has been slain must prove himself innocent of the slaying and make bot for the foray according to the wergeld of the slain. If his wergeld be 200_s._ he must make bot with 50_s._, and the like justice was to be done with respect to the ‘dearer born.’

We may assume from this and the later evidence that already the wergeld of the twelve-hyndeman was 1200 scillings, and that of the twy-hyndeman 200 scillings, though in the Dooms of Ine this is not otherwise directly stated. The laws take it for granted that the amount of the wergelds was common knowledge, as in so many other cases.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: The six-hynde class.]

The mention of the six-hynde class in addition to the twelve-hynde and twy-hynde classes makes it a matter of importance to learn what manner of persons were included in the six-hynde class.

The Laws of King Alfred, as we have seen, generally mention the six-hyndeman with the other classes, but without giving any clue to an answer to the question to what social rank he belonged. In the Laws of Ine, however, a distinct clue is given, and it is one which accords with Continental usage and suggests a reason for the disappearance of the six-hyndeman from the later laws. He is mentioned again after King Alfred’s time only in the so-called Laws of Henry I.

The clauses relating to this subject are important enough to claim consideration in a separate section.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: The gafol-gelda and the gebur.]

One other important social distinction, or division of classes, appears already in the Laws of Ine, viz. that which existed between possessors of land and _gafol-geldas_ and _geburs_ who were, as we should say, _tenants_ on the land of others. We shall have to return to the consideration of this distinction and to note the fact that it is in these Laws of Ine that the _gebur_ appears as almost the equivalent of the _gafol-gelda_, while they afford incidental evidence also that the typical holding of the gafol-gelda (and thus of the gebur) was the ‘yardland’ or virgate of open-field husbandry.

The mention of the gafol-gelda and the gebur occurs in s. 6.

Gif hwa gefeohte on cyninges huse sie he scyldig ealles his
ierfes ⁊ sie on cyninges dome hwæðer he lif age þe nage. Gif
hwa on mynstre gefeohte hund twelftig scill. gebete. Gif hwa on
ealdormonnes huse gefeohte oþþe on oðrer geþungenes witan lx
scill. gebete he ⁊ oðer lx geselle to wite.

(6) If any one fight in the _king’s house_, let him be liable in
all his property and be it in the king’s dooms whether he shall
or shall not have life. If any one fight in a _minster_, let him
make bot with cxx scillings. If any one fight in an _ealdorman’s_
house or in any other distinguished wita’s, let him make bot with
lx scillings and pay a second lx scillings as wite.

Gif he þonne on gafol-geldan huse oþþe on gebures gefeohte c.xx
scill. to wite geselle ⁊ þæm gebure vi scill.

But if he fight in a _gafol-gelda’s_ house or in a _gebur’s_, let
him pay cxx scillings as wite, and to the gebur vi scillings.

And þeah hit sie on middum felda gefohten hund twelftig scill. to
wite sie agifen.

And though it be fought on midfield let cxx scillings be given as
wite.

[Sidenote: The gafol-gelda and gebur have only a six scilling fightwite.]

This clause is intelligible if we follow the principle that fighting anywhere is a breach of the king’s peace. The king, therefore, in every case and wherever it happens is entitled to a wite of 120 scillings. But if it happens within the house or precinct of an ealdorman or of any other chief member of the Witan the amount is divided between the king and his official. If the fighting is in the precinct or house of a gafol-gelda or gebur the king still gets his full wite of 120 scillings, and an additional six scillings is to be given to the gebur, just as in King Alfred’s Laws the same amount is to be given to the ceorlisc man for fighting in his ‘flet.’

This clause forms a valuable groundwork of evidence as to the position of the gafol-gelda under West Saxon law, and we shall have to recur to it when we further consider the position of the ceorlisc class at the date of King Ine’s Dooms. The omission of the gesithcund class from this section, unless included as distinguished members of the Witan, can hardly be accidental, but it is not easy at first sight to divine a plausible reason for it.

* * * * *

Let us for a moment try to recognise the position to which so far the Dooms of Ine have brought us.

We seem able in those already quoted to trace a process at work combining distinctions of classes of different origins and based upon different lines of thought.

We find a very marked and prominent division of classes into gesithcund and ceorlisc alongside of hardly more than incidental mention of the division of classes so prominent afterwards into twelve-hynde and twy-hynde. In King Alfred’s Laws we could trace no practical distinction between the twy-hynde and ceorlisc classes. We could not distinguish between them. All distinction at any rate evaded our notice. We have now to ask the double question what was the distinction between gesithcund and twelve-hynde, as well as what was the distinction between ceorlisc and twy-hynde.

The chief question raised by King Alfred’s Laws was whether any great distinction existed between the ‘ceorl who sits on gafol land’ and other members of the ceorlisc class. The Laws of King Alfred gave us no clue on this point. It seemed as though, after all, the ceorlisc class must have been so generally gafol-geldas that practically the twy-hynde and ceorlisc class might be spoken of roughly and inclusively as ‘ceorls who sit on gafol land,’ and that this ‘sitting on gafol land’ might be, after all, the fairly distinctive mark of the ceorlisc class for whom King Alfred claimed a twy-hynde wergeld as ‘equally dear’ with the Danish lysing.

[Sidenote: The gafol-gelda and gebur of Ine’s laws put in the place of the ceorlisc man of King Alfred.]

And now in this clause 6 of King Ine’s Laws we find the gafol-gelda or gebur put directly into the place of the ceorlisc man of King Alfred’s Laws with the same penalty of six scillings payable to him for fighting in his house or his ‘flet.’

_King Alfred’s Laws_, s. 39.

If any one fight in a ceorlisc man’s flet, with six scillings let
him make bot to the ceorl.

_King Ine’s Laws_, s. 6.

But if he fight in a gafol-gelda’s house or in a gebur’s, let him
pay … to the gebur six scillings.

It might be said at first sight that here surely is a clear trace of the degradation of the ceorl into a gafol-gelda during the 200 years between the Laws of King Ine and King Alfred. For, it might be said, the ceorl of King Alfred’s Laws has the same bot for the fighting in his house as that which the gafol-gelda had under Ine’s Laws 200 years earlier. This may be so. But how do we know that the gafol-gelda of King Ine’s time was not already the typical ceorl as he seems to have been in King Alfred’s time? In that case there would be no sign of degradation of the ceorl into the gafol-gelda. Or at any rate if there had been a degradation from some original higher position and status it had already taken place before the time of King Ine. Our judgment on the position of the ceorlisc class under King Ine’s Laws must still be reserved.

IV. THE POSITION OF STRANGERS IN BLOOD UNDER KING INE’S LAWS.--THE SIX-HYNDEMAN.

[Sidenote: Strangers in blood.]

The question of the position under West Saxon law of strangers in blood is one of much interest, and we have reserved the clauses relating to it for separate consideration.

There may have been several different classes of strangers.

[Sidenote: How were the earlier conquered inhabitants treated?]

How far there was a considerable substratum of conquered Romano-British inhabitants is a very vexed question. That there were such in the outlying and recently conquered districts is certain. Mr. Coote’s view may not be wholly mistaken that a Romano-British population, living, as on the Continent, under their own laws and customs, existed in most districts, especially in the towns.

These strangers may some of them have had land and some of them not. Certainly not all of them were regarded as theows or thralls.

To what class, then, did they belong? And how were they treated? What degree of freedom was granted them, and what was their wergeld, if they had any?

It is to the Laws of Ine that we must go for the answers to these questions. And we start on the inquiry seeking light also upon the position of the as yet unexplained six-hynde class so often mentioned in the Laws of King Alfred but never in the later laws.

The only hint we have had as yet as to the meaning of the six-hynde class is whether gesithcund-men not having land may not have belonged to it.

[Sidenote: The _wealh_ or _Wilisc-man_ with five hides was six-hynde.]

The wergelds of the ordinary classes of tribesmen were doubtless too well known to require more than incidental mention in King Ine’s Dooms, but there are several clauses or fragments of clauses specially mentioning the wergelds of the _wealh_ and of the _Wilisc_-man.

Wealh gif he hafað fif hyda he bið syx hynde.

(24) A _wealh_ if he have five hides ‘he shall be six-hynde.’

Gif Wylisc mon hæbbe hide londes his wer bið c.xx scill. gif he
þonne hæbbe healfe lxxx scill. gif he nænig hæbbe lx scillinga.

(32) If a Wylisc-man have a hide of land his wer shall be cxx
scillings, but if he have half a hide lxxx scillings, if he have
none lx scillings.

Cyninges hors-wealh seþe him mæge geærendian þæs wer-gield bið cc
scill.

(33) The king’s ‘horse-wealh’ who can do his errands, his wergeld
shall be cc scillings.

It will be noticed that the wergeld of the _Wilisc_ man with one hide of land is one fifth of the wergeld of the _wealh_ with five hides, so that wealhs and Wilisc men seem to be treated on the same lines--as if the two words meant the same thing.

[Sidenote: The Gallo-Roman ‘_wala_.’]

It is not easy to draw a distinction between the ‘wealh’ and the ‘Wilisc’ man. ‘Wilisc’ is certainly used as the adjective corresponding to ‘wealh,’ though sometimes (as _e.g._ in ‘Wilisc ale’) for something specially Welsh. In the Lex Salica, as we have seen, the Gallo-Roman living under Roman law, according to the Malberg gloss was a ‘_Wala_’ with a wergeld half that of the ‘ingenuus’ living under Salic law. And, without pushing this meaning so far as Mr. Coote was inclined to do, we may fairly, I think, look upon the word ‘wealh’ as generally embracing not only natives of Wales and West Wales, but also the wider class of persons of the conquered populations, whether Welsh or Britons or Romano-Britons, who were not recognised as of Anglo-Saxon blood.

[Sidenote: The _Wallerwente_ of Yorkshire.]

We may call in the later evidence of the Northumbrian Priest-law[250] in illustration. The use of ores and half-marks in this document and its being, so to speak, domiciled in York, seem to connect it with the period of the Northmen’s conquest of Northumbria, when York was its capital and as yet the tide of battle had not been turned--_i.e._ shortly before the date of the Compact between Alfred and Guthrum. In this Priest-law the penalty for the practice of heathen rites on the part of a king’s thane was ten half-marks, and if he wished to deny the charge it must be with ten named by himself, ten named by his kindred (_maga_), and ten _Wallerwente_, and if he failed in the denial he had to pay the ten half-marks, half of which went to the church and half to the king.

And so also in the case of the ‘landagende man’ who had to pay six half-marks: he too must deny with as many of his like (_gelicena_) and as many _wente_ as the king’s thane. And so also in the case of a ‘cyrlisc’ man.

It is quite clear that these _Wallerwente_ were _free_ inhabitants of the district, for their oaths were taken in evidence, which would not have been done had they been theows. The Wallerwente were, on the other hand, not recognised as ‘ceorlisc’ Saxons. They were obviously the native Celtic inhabitants of the great plain of York[251]--the _gwent_ or basin of the Derwent and the Ouse. The locality is fixed by the clause which restricts the Sabbath day’s journey on necessity to six miles out of York.

[Sidenote: Under Frankish law the Gallo-Romans had half-wergelds.]

Now, we have seen that under Frankish laws the Gallo-Roman population living under Roman law had _half_-wergelds. If the freeman living under Salic law had a wergeld of 200 solidi the ‘Romanus possessor’ had a wergeld of 100 solidi. And so in the same way, returning to the Laws of Ine, while the gesithcund or other landed Wessex freeman was a twelve-hyndeman, the wealh who had five hides was reckoned as six-hynde.

[Sidenote: The wealh with five hides had a half-wergeld.]

We have seen that the English ceorl who rose to the possession of five hides and paid gafol to the king, and with coat of mail and over-gilded sword followed to the fyrd, became gesithcund with a wergeld of 1200 scillings. It is quite in accordance with tribal feeling as shown in Continental usage that the stranger in blood, whether Welsh or Romano-British, who had risen in the same way to the possession or occupation of five hides should be six-hynde with a half-wergeld of 600 scillings.

We have quoted the Northumbrian Priest-law and noted that its penalties in half-marks and ores suggest that it belongs to the period before King Alfred’s Compact with Guthrum, during which York was the capital of the Northmen’s kingdom. It is interesting to see that in the fragment of North People’s Law quoted in the previous chapter, belonging probably to the same district and to the same period, some of the clauses with reference to the Wilisc man are evidently copied from the Laws of Ine though with some additional matter and perhaps some slight errors in the figures.

And if a Wilisc-man thrive so that he have a hide of land and can
bring forth the King’s gafol, then is his wergeld 120 scillings.
And if he thrive not except to half a hide, then let his wer be
80 scillings. And if he have not any land, let him be paid for
with 70 scillings [? 60].

[Sidenote: The conquering Northmen gave the hauld a wergeld twice that of the thane.]

And it is worth notice that it was in this very document that the Northmen as conquerors, while leaving the English wergeld of the thane at 2000 thrymsas or 1200 scillings, gave to their own ‘hold’ a double wergeld of 4000 thrymsas.

[Sidenote: The six-hynde class died out.]

We may therefore regard the six-hyndeman of King Ine and King Alfred’s Laws as probably the Wilisc man with five hides or more. There does not appear to be anything in King Alfred’s Laws to lead us away from this conclusion. Any other would leave the complete silence of King Alfred’s laws with regard to the Wilisc class unexplained, unless it could be considered that in the turmoil of the Northmen’s invasions and the stress of war the Wilisc class had already become more or less amalgamated with the Saxon population by the force of their common interests against the invaders.

The silence of the later laws as to a six-hynde class may probably be explained by the same considerations.

[Sidenote: The Wilisc man under Ine’s law only half as worthy as the Englishman.]

Passing from the Wilisc man who was six-hynde in consequence of his landed position to the Wilisc man viewed simply as a stranger in blood, there is further evidence that as a stranger he was regarded as only half as ‘worthy’ as an Englishman. In s. 46 of Ine’s Laws it is stated that an oath-worthy person charged with theft is to deny the charge with an oath of 120 hides if the accuser be an Englishman, but with only 60 hides if the accuser be a Wilisc man.

Ðonne mon monnan betyhð ꝥ he ceap forstele oþþe forstolenne
gefeormie þonne sceal he be lx hyda onsacan þære þiefðe gif he
að-wyrðe bið.

(46) When a man charges another that he steals, or harbours
stolen cattle, then shall he deny the theft with lx hides if he
be oath-worthy.

Gif þonne Englisc onstal ga forð onsace þonne be twy-fealdum.

If, however, an English charge of theft[252] come forward, let
him then deny it with twice as many.

Gif hit þonne bið Wilisc onstal ne bið se að na þe mara.

But if it be a Wilisc charge, the oath shall not be the increased
oath.

This clause does not tell us whether the Wilisc man was considered to be oath-worthy or not. Probably he would not be as against a Saxon. It only states that when the charge of theft was made by an Englishman the oath was to be one of twice as many hides as would be required to deny the charge of a Wilisc man.

[Sidenote: In the ‘Ordinance of the Dun-setas’ strangers have only half-wergelds and must go to the ordeal as not oath-worthy.]

Corroborative evidence as regards the half-wergelds and oath-worthiness of the wealh class may be found in an ordinance of later date, but belonging to Wessex, and it may be quoted as throwing strong light upon the position of the Wilisc or wealh class (_wealþeode_) in apparently a border district, where Saxons and wealhs met together with a boundary of a river between them. It is entitled an ‘Ordinance respecting the Dun-setas.’[253]

The leading fact throughout this document is that the two peoples met avowedly as strangers. Its aim was to keep the peace and to protect the owners of cattle on each side of the stream from the raids of their neighbours on the other.

They are recognised as strangers to each other and on principle treated reciprocally as such. Denial of a charge by oath and oath-helpers, unless by special agreement, is assumed to be of no use and evidently out of place between strangers in blood. Consequently the ordeal was the only answer to a charge of theft.

Ne stent nan oðer lád æt tihtlan bute ordal betweox Wealan &
Englan, bute man þafian wille.

There stands no other purgation in an accusation save the ordeal
between Wealas and English unless it be allowed.

This was fully in accordance with tribal custom no less than the further fact that their wergelds were, obviously for the same reason, to be half-wergelds.

Gyf Wealh Engliscne man ofsleane þearf he hine hiden-ofer buton
be healfan were gyldan ne Ænglisc Wyliscne geon-ofer þe ma sy he
þegen-boren sy he ceorl-boren healf wer þær æt-fealð.

If a Wealh slay an Englishman he need not pay for him on this
side except with half his wer, no more than the Englishman for a
Wylisc on that side, be he thane-born, be he ceorl-born, one half
of the wer in that case falls away.

[Sidenote: These wylisc men were in Wessex.]

In this document the wealh is treated according to tribal principle as a stranger in blood, both as regards recourse to the ordeal, and the half-wergeld. And the word ‘wyliscne’ is used as the appropriate adjective distinguishing the wealh from the Englishman. So that in this case ‘wealh’ and ‘wylisc’ mean the same thing. Further, this evidence, though later in date probably than King Alfred’s Laws, is practically Wessex evidence, because, though the geographical position of the Dun-setas is not accurately known, their connection with the West Saxons is the one thing which is clear.[254]

Returning to the Laws of Ine, as the wergeld of the Wilisc man with five hides was a half-wergeld of 600 scillings it might be supposed that the ordinary Wilisc man’s would be a half-wergeld of 100 scillings. But it was not exactly so, for, according to s. 32 above quoted, the Wilisc man with one hide had a wergeld of 120 scillings, one with half a hide 80 scillings, one without any land 60 scillings.

In an isolated clause added to s. 23 a somewhat different statement is made. The wealh gafol-gelda has the same wergeld as if he had a hide of land, and the wealh theow the same wergeld as the Wilisc man without land.

[Sidenote: Various classes of wealhs and Wilisc men.]

Wealh gafol-gelda cxx scill. his sunu c. Ðeowne lx. somhwelcne
fiftegum. Weales hyd[255] twelfum.

(23) A wealh gafol-gelda cxx scillings, his son c: a theow lx:
some fifty: a wealh’s skin twelve.

That the theow of this passage is the ‘_wealh-theow_’ with a wergeld of 60 scillings is clear from sections 54 and 74, the first of which relates to the ‘_Wilisc wite theow_.’

Wite-þeowne monnan Wyliscne mon sceal bedrifan be twelf hidum swa
þeowne to swingum. Engliscne be feower & þrittig hida.

(54) A Wilisc wite-theowman shall be followed up with twelve
hides like a theow to the scourging; an English with four and
thirty hides.

The wite-theow was a person who had once been free but from debt or calamity had sunk into thraldom.

The English ‘wite-theow’ is dealt with thus in the Laws of Ine.

Gif wite-þeow Englisc-mon hine forstalie ho hine mon & ne gylde
his hlaforde. Gif hine mon ofslea ne gylde hine mon his mægum gif
hie hine on twelf-monðum ne aliesden.

(24) If a wite theow, an Englishman, steal himself away, let him
be hanged and nothing paid to his lord. If any one slay him let
nothing be paid to his kindred if they have not redeemed him
within twelve months.

His free kindred might ignore him if they liked: there was no need for them to pay the wergeld of a kinsman who had forfeited his freedom.