Kemble's computation of the hide, the person thus described would be the possessor of about 150 acres of land.*

A charter of the reign of Æthelred, some time before 995, relates to a claim of land brought in the first instance before that king on the application of one claimant Wynfloed and subsequently, at the instance of the other claimant Leofwine, ་ referred to the county court. The king having heard Wynfloed, ' who produced her title, 'sent forthwith by the archbishop and by those who were there to witness with him to Leofwine and made this known to him. Then he would not [comply] unless it were carried to the shire-mote. And they did so. Then the king sent by Abbot Elfere his brief to the mote at Cuckhamslow and greeted all the witan who were there assembled. That was Æthelsige bishop and Escwig bishop and Elfric abbot and all the shire. And prayed and commanded that they should reconcile Wynfloed and Leofwine as justly as might ever seem to them most just.'

This document is a remarkable proof that the appeal to the county court, even from the king himself, was claimed not as a favour but as a matter of right. Leofwine, upon receiving notice of the title adduced by his opponent, refuses to submit to any adjudication but that of the shire-mote; and accordingly that tribunal is set in motion by a writ from the Crown. Dr. Hickes comments on the conformity of this procedure with the law of Cnut (sect. 80). And he who has land assured by the witness of the shire, let him have it undisputed during his day and after his day to sell and to give to him who is dearest to him.'

In the cause in the county court at Cuckhamslow to which we have referred, the persons assembled are said to have included all the shire (eal sio scir). In other records the ` members of the court are described in still wider terms. In the antient Historia Ecclesiæ Eliensis,' given in Gale's ‘Historiæ Scriptores,' and written by a monk of Ely in the twelfth century, there is a curious account of a lawsuit shortly after the death of King Edgar respecting some land in Northamptonshire, which one Lessius claimed against the Bishop of Ely. The cause was in the first instance heard in London, and afterwards reheard apparently by way of appeal-in the county

* Kemble, 'The Saxons in England,' vol. i. p. 109.

It is given in the 'Dissertatio Epistolaris'; and also in the 'Codex Diplomaticus.'

Historia Britanicæ, Saxonicæ, Anglo Danicæ Scriptores XV. ex Vetustis codd. MSS. Editi Opera Thomas Gale. Vol. i. p. 468.

court of Northampton, where it is said to have been decided by all the people.' The history states that eight days afterwards they assembled again at Northampton, and there being congregated the whole province or shrievalty (vice comitatu) they again expounded the said cause before all; which being expounded and declared, like as it had been previously decided at London, they also at Northampton adjudged. Which being done, all the people (omnis populus) with an oath on the cross of Christ restored to the bishop absolutely what was his own.'

The same writer gives numerous accounts of sales of land in the presence of assemblies of Hundreds; and these meetings seem to have been held occasionally in the precinct of the cathedral. Thus, in an account of land at Staneie (cap. 27) it is stated that Wlstanus, of Dalham, came to Ely, and with him many barones, and two Hundreds being collected there towards the north at the gate of the monastery, held plea. Then came to him a certain widow by name Æsumen, and with her came many of her kinsfolk and neighbours, who before them all gave to Wlstan Staneie and the fishery which she had there. Then arose Ogga de Mildenhalle and silence being made he says, "Beloved, I will you to know that I give to S. Etheldryda after my day a hide of land at Cambridge." Whereupon arose Wlstan and before them all gave to S. Etheldryda the land and fishery of Staneie which the said widow had given him. Then he addressed Ogga, and said to him, "Since, beloved, thou hast begun to reverence the glorious virgin Ætheldryda, delay not to do that which thou art about to do; that which thou desirest to do is good, but it were better to accomplish it in thy lifetime." Which counsel Ogga approving, did as he had said.' In a subsequent chapter of the narrative it is stated that the fishery or pool here mentioned was subsequently for many years let to certain kinsfolk of the widow at a rent of two thousand eels, and that after a time the tenants who held this fishery on lease unjustly took possession of some land of the monastery at Staneie. The dispute was the subject of much litigation. 'At length Ægelwine, the alderman at Cambridge, held there a great court of the citizens and people of the Hundreds (placitum civium et Hundretanorum) before xxiv judices under Thorningefeld, near Maidenburge.' The land was awarded to the abbot, and the lessors were ordered to pay the fish of six years.*

The references to judicial assemblies are frequent in this history of Ely, and some of them convey valuable information respecting the constitution of the Anglo-Saxon tribunals.

* Historia Eliensis,' cap. xxxiv.

curious account is given of the purchase by the abbey of Ely of land at Bluntesham, from Wlnothus, for thirty pounds. Five pounds were paid to him at Ely, and 'the xxv pounds which remained were paid to him before the King Edgar and his wise men; which being done, Wlnothus in their presence delivered Bluntesham to the bishop with a deed.' But afterwards the title of Wlnothus was disputed by one Boge, who asserted a prior title, alleging that the land had descended to him from his grandmother. The narrative proceeds: After these things there was assembled the whole county of Huntingdon by Beornotho the alderman and by Afwold and by Edric. Forthwith there was a very great assembly. Wlfnoth is summoned and brings with him faithful men, namely all the better men (meliores) of vi Hundreds, and Lessius, now of Ely, produced there the deed of Bluntesham, who being all gathered together they explained the claim and ventilated (ventilaverunt) and discussed the cause; and the truth of the matter being known they by their judgment took the land from the sons of Bogan. Then Wlnoth produced more than a thousand men, that by their oath he might assert his title to that land; but the sons of Bogan were unwilling to take the oath, and so all determined that Wlnoth should have Bluntesham, and faithfully promised to be his helpers in this matter and to bear witness what they had then done if ever at any other time he or any of his heirs had need. And when all this was done Bishop Edelwold gave to Wlnoth xl shillings and an armlet worth iii marks because he had labored much in this and was about to go beyond the sea in the service of God.'

Two instances have been cited of county courts—one at Cuck-、 hamslow, in Berkshire, and one at Northampton-which decided causes after they had been primarily heard by the sovereign. The following is a remarkable example of the same nature. It、 shows in a very striking manner the independence of the shire mote; for in this instance the popular judgment not only reversed the prior decision in the king's court, but annulled an adjudication in favour of the king himself. It relates to land at Bromley and Fawkham, adjudged to King Eadgar by the royal court in London, and subsequently sold by him for a large sum of money to the Bishop of Rochester. There was a prior title set up by Escwyn, a widow. The record states that after the king's death, Bryhtric, the widow's relative, began and compelled her, so that they took violent possession of the land. And they sought Eadwine the ealdorman, who was God's adversary, and the folk, and compelled the bishop to restore the

books [i.e. the title-deeds] on peril of all his property. He was not allowed to enjoy his rights in any one of the three things which had been given him in pledge by all the leodscipe— neither his plea, his succession, nor his ownership.'* The leodscipe must have been the king's royal court, which, as appears by the context, included the King Eadgar and several prelates and nobles. The writer of the account shows his partisanship by styling the presiding officer of the county court God's adversary.' The material point is that the jurisdiction of the local tribunal was considered incontestable even in a case in which the king and nobles were interested in disputing it.†

The county courts, on some occasions of special interest, attracted vast gatherings of people. In the venerable document called the Textus Roffensis,' a MS. belonging to Rochester Cathedral, and supposed to have been written about A.D. 1120, there are remarkable accounts of two great assemblies of that kind held in Kent, the one some time before A.D. 988, the other in the reign of William the Conqueror.‡

The earlier instance relates to a great shire-mote held at Erith, in Kent, in which upwards of a thousand persons took part. The subject of adjudication was certain land at Wouldham, given to S. Andrews at Rochester by a devise, the validity of which was disputed by Leofsunu, who had married the widow of a former owner. The will under which the Church of Rochester claimed had been made in the presence of Archbishop Dunstan. The Saxon accounts state that Leofsunu,

* 'Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici,' No. 1258. This remarkable collection of Saxon charters, published by the English Historical Society, and the Diplomatarium already cited, are the most important recent contributions of authentic materials for the study of Saxon laws and institutions.

† Mr. Kemble, in his 'Saxons in England,' commenting on this document, says: "The matter was brought in the king's theningmanna gemot in London, and there decided in favour of the plaintiff, a bishop. But the defendant was not satisfied, and carried the cause to the shire, who at once claimed jurisdiction and exercised it too, coming to a decision diametrically opposed to the theningmen or ministri regii. It seems to have been a dirty business on the part of the Bishop of Rochester, and the freemen of Kent so treated it in defiance of the king's court.' Vol ii. p. 46.

An historical account of that venerable monument of antiquity the Textus Roffensis,' by Samuel Pegge, M.A. (London, 1784, quarto) attributes the book to Ernulf, Bishop of Rochester, who died A.D. 1124. The MS. consists of two parts the Laws of Anglo-Saxon Kings, and a Register or Chartulary of Rochester Cathedral. An edition of the 'Textus Roffensis,' by Thomas Hearne, was published at Oxford in 1720.

The passages in the 'Textus Roffensis' relating to the shiremots at Erith and Penenden were noticed as early as 1656 by Lambard in his 'Perambulation of Kent,' p. 484 and p. 236.

through the wife he had taken, Eadric's relict, violated the testament, and contemned the archbishop's witnessing; rode then into the land with the woman without the decree of the witan. When that was made known to the bishop, then the bishop laid claims in all Elfeh's testament at Erith in the witness of Ælfstân bishop of London, and of all the convent and of that of Christchurch and of the bishop Elfstan of Rochester and of the shireman, Wulfsige's priest and of Bryhtwald at Mereworth, and of all the East Kentishmen and West Kentishmen. And it was known in Sussex and in Wessex and in Middlesex and in Essex. And the Archbishop with his own oath claimed for God and S. Andrew, with the charters, in Christ's rood, the lands that Leofsunu took to himself. And Wulfsige the shireman on the part of the king received the oath as he [Leofsunu] declined it. And there was a good addition of ten hundred men who gave the oath.'*

It is apparent from this document that county courts had f jurisdiction in testamentary causes. The corresponding Latin account, which also appears in the Textus Roffensis,' says, 'The archbishop appointed a day for this plea at Erith;' upon which Dr. Hickes, who has given the record in his Dissertatio Epistolaris,' observes that the archbishop and similarly the bishops within their jurisdiction had power of summoning the comitia of the counties.†

The same Rochester manuscript gives a very interesting account of another very remarkable assembly at Penenden Heath in the reign of William the Conqueror. The account is entitled 'A Plea at Pinenden between Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury and Odo Bishop of Bayeux.'‡ Odo, who was a brother of the Conqueror, had been raised to the dignity of Earl of Kent, and subsequently Vice-regent of the kingdom. The record states that he, during the absence of Lanfranc from the realm, unlawfully took possession of various lands belonging to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. On the requisition of the archbishop, the king commanded the whole county to assemble together, and that all the men of the county, French-born and especially English, should assemble at one place, who when they were met together at Pinenden all sat equally together. And since many pleas of determinations of lands and discussions respecting the customs of the laws arose

* This translation is taken from Mr. Thorpe's 'Diplomatarium,' p. 271.

It is transcribed by Spelman in his notes appended to his edition of Eadmer: Eadmeri Monachi Cantuarensis Historia.' London, fol. 1623, p. 197.

1