trial, not because it was uncertain, but lest that sacred figure, says he, of the cross should be prostituted in common disputes and controversies.* The ordeal was another established method of trial among the Anglo-Saxons. It was practised either by boiling water or red-hot iron. The former was appropriated to the common people; the latter to the nobility. The water or iron was consecrated by many prayers, masses, fastings, and exorcisms,† after which, the person accused either took up a stone sunk in the water to a certain depth, or carried the iron to a certain distance; and his hand being wrapped up, and the covering sealed for three days, if there appeared, on examining it, no marks of burning, he was pronounced innocent; if otherwise, guilty. The trial by cold water was different: the person was thrown into consecrated water; if he swam, he was guilty, if he sunk, innocent.|| It is difficult for us to conceive how any innocent person could ever escape by the one trial, or any criminal be convicted by the other. But there was another usage admirably calculated for allowing every criminal to escape, who had confidence enough to try it. A consecrated cake, called a corsned, was produced, which if the person could swallow and digest, he was pronounced innocent. The feudal law, if it had place at all among the AngloSaxons, which is doubtful, was not certainly extended over all the landed property, and was not attended with those consequences of homage, reliefs,** wardship, marriage, and other burdens, which were inseparable from it in the kingdoms of the continent. As the Saxons expelled, or almost entirely destroyed, the ancient Britons, they planted themselves in this island on the same footing with their ancestors in Germany, and found no occasion for the feudal institutions,†† which were * Du Cange, in verbo Crux. † Spel. in verbo Ordealium. Parker, p. 155. Lindenbrog. p. 1299. LL. Inæ, sect. 77. Sometimes the person accused walked barefoot over red-hot iron. ¶ Spel. in verbo Corsned. Parker, p. 156. Text. Roffens. p. 33. **On the death of an alderman, a greater or lesser thane, there was a payment made to the king of his best arms; and this was called his heriot; but this was not of the nature of a relief. See Spel. of Tenures, p. 2. The value of this heriot was fixed by Canute'a laws, sect. 69. tt Bracton de Acqu. Rer. Domin. lib. ii. cap. 16. See more fully Spel. of Feus and Tenures, and Craigius de Jure Feud. lib. i. dieg. 7. calculated to maintain a kind of standing army, always in readiness to suppress any insurrection among the conquered people. The trouble and expense of defending the state in England lay equally upon all the land; and it was usual for every five hides to equip a man for the service. The "trinoda necessitas," as it was called, or the burden of military expeditions, of repairing highways, and of building and supporting bridges, was inseparable from landed property, even though it belonged to the church or monasteries, unless exempted by a particular charter.* The ceorles, or husbandmen, were provided with arms, and were obliged to take their turn in military duty. There were computed to be two hundred and fortythree thousand six hundred hides in England; ‡ consequently the ordinary military force of the kingdom consisted of fortyeight thousand seven hundred and twenty men; though, no doubt, on extraordinary occasions, a greater number might be assembled. The king and nobility had some military tenants, who were called "sithcun-men." § And there were some lands annexed to the office of aldermen, and to other offices; but these probably were not of great extent, and were possessed only during pleasure, as in the commencement of the feudal law in other countries of Europe. The revenue of the king seems to have consisted chiefly in his demesnes, which were large; and in the tolls and imposts which he probably levied at discretion on the boroughs and seaports that lay within his demesnes. He could not alienate any part of the crown lands, even to religious uses, without the consent of the states. Danegelt was a land-tax of a shilling a hide, imposed by the states,¶ either for payment of the sums exacted by the Danes, or for putting the kingdom in a posture of defence against those invaders.** The Saxon pound, as likewise that which was coined for some centuries after the conquest, was near three times the weight of our present money. There were forty-eight shillings in the pound, and five pence in a shilling; tt consequently a Saxon shilling was near a fifth heavier than ours, and a Saxon penny near three times as heavy.‡‡ As to the value of money *Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 256. ++ LL. Elf. sect. 40. † Inæ, sect. 51. p. 340. Spel. Concil. vol. i. ** LL. Edw. Conf. sect. 12. Fleetwood's Chron. Pretiosum, p. 27, 28, etc. in those times, compared to commodities, there are some, though not very certain, means of computation. A sheep, by the laws of Athelstan, was estimated at a shilling; that is, fifteen pence of our money. The fleece was two fifths of the value of the whole sheep,* much above its present estimation ; and the reason probably was, that the Saxons, like the ancients, were little acquainted with any clothing but what was made of wool. Silk and cotton were quite unknown: linen was not much used. An ox was computed at six times the value of a sheep; a cow at four. If we suppose that the cattle in that age, from the defects in husbandry, were not so large as they are at present in England, we may compute that money was then near ten times of greater value. A horse was valued at about thirty-six shillings of our money, or thirty Saxon shillings; ‡ a mare a third less. A man at three pounds. The board-wages of a child the first year was eight shillings, together with a cow's pasture in summer, and an ox's in winter. William of Malmsbury mentions it as a remarkably high price that William Rufus gave fifteen marks for a horse, or about thirty pounds of our present money. Between the years 900 and 1000, Ednoth bought a hide of land for about one hundred and eighteen shillings of present money. This was little more than a shilling an acre, which indeed appears to have been the usual price, as we may learn from other accounts.†† A palfrey was sold for twelve shillings about the year 966.‡‡ The value of an ox in King Ethelred's time was between seven and eight shillings; a cow about six shillings. Gervas of Tilbury says, that in Henry I.'s time, bread which would suffice a hundred men for a day was rated at three shillings, or a shilling of that age; for it is thought that soon after the conquest a pound sterling was divided into twenty shillings. A sheep was rated at a shilling, and so of other things in proportion. In Athelstan's time, a ram was valued at a shilling, or fourpence Saxon.|||| The tenants of Shireburn were obliged, at their choice, to pay either sixpence or four hens.¶¶ About 1232, the abbot of St Alban's, going on a journey, hired seven handsome, stout ** * LL. Inæ, sect. 69. Wilkins, p. 126. ||LL. Inæ, sect. 38. **Hist. Rames. p. 415. Hist. Eliens. p. 471. Wilkins, p. 56. Wilkins, p. 66. § Wilkins, p. 126. ¶ Page 121. + Hist. Eliens. p. 473. §§ Wilkins, p. 126. ¶¶ Monast. Anglic. vol. ii. p. 528. ] * It horses; and agreed, if any of them died on the road, to pay the owner thirty shillings apiece of our present money. is to be remarked, that in all ancient times the raising of corn, especially wheat, being a species of manufactory, that commodity always bore a higher price, compared to cattle, than it does in our times.† The Saxon Chronicle tells us, that in the reign of Edward the Confessor there was the most terrible famine ever known; insomuch that a quarter of wheat rose to sixty pennies, or fifteen shillings of our present money. Consequently, it was as dear as if it now cost seven pounds ten shillings. This much exceeds the great famine in the end of Queen Elizabeth, when a quarter of wheat was sold for four pounds. Money in this last period was nearly of the same value as in our time. These severe famines are a certain proof of bad husbandry. On the whole, there are three things to be considered, wherever a sum of money is mentioned in ancient times. First, the change of denomination, by which a pound has been reduced to the third part of its ancient weight in silver. Secondly, the change in value by the greater plenty of money, which has reduced the same weight of silver to ten times less value, compared to commodities; and consequently a pound sterling to the thirtieth part of the ancient value. Thirdly, the fewer people and less industry which were then to be found in every European kingdom. This circumstance made even the thirtieth part of the sum more difficult to levy, and caused any sum to have more than thirty times greater weight and influence, both abroad and at home, than in our times; in the same manner that a sum, a hundred thousand pounds, for instance, is at present more difficult to levy in a small state, such as Bavaria, and can produce greater effects on such a small community than on England. This last difference is not easy to be calculated; but, allowing that England has now six times more industry, and three times more people than it had *at the conquest, and for some reigns after that period, we are upon that supposition to conceive, taking all circumstances together, every sum of money mentioned by historians, as if it were multiplied more than a hundred fold above a sum of the same denomination at present. In the Saxon times, land was divided equally among all the * M. Paris. + Page 157. † Fleetwood, p. 83, 94, 96, 98. male children of the deceased, according to the custom of gavelkind. The practice of entails is to be found in those times.* Land was chiefly of two kinds, bockland, or land held by book or charter, which was regarded as full property, and descended to the heirs of the possessor; and folkland, or the land held by the ceorles and common people, who were removable at pleasure, and were, indeed, only tenants during the will of their lords. The first attempt which we find in England to separate the ecclesiastical from the civil jurisdiction, was that law of Edgar, by which all disputes among the clergy were ordered to be carried before the bishop. The penances were then very severe; but as a man could buy them off with money, or might substitute others to perform them, they lay easy upon the rich.‡ With regard to the manners of the Anglo-Saxons, we can say little, but that they were in general a rude, uncultivated people, ignorant of letters, unskilled in the mechanical arts, untamed to submission under law and government, addicted to intemperance, riot, and disorder. Their best quality was their military courage, which yet was not supported by discipline or conduct. Their want of fidelity to the prince, or to any trust reposed in them, appears strongly in the history of their later period; and their want of humanity in all their history. Even the Norman historians, notwithstanding the low state of the arts in their own country, speak of them as barbarians, when they mention the invasion made upon them by the duke of Normandy. The conquest put the people in a situation of receiving slowly, from abroad, the rudiments of science and cultivation, and of correcting their rough and licentious manners. * LL. Ælf. sect. 37, apud Wilkins, p. 43. Wilkins, p. 96, 97. Spel. Concil. p. 473. + Wilkins, p. 83. |