between the archbishop and the said Bishop of Bayeux, and also between the archiepiscopal and regal customs which could not be finished on the first day, for that reason the whole county was detained there three days. . . . . And by all those good and wise men who were there present it was so determined, and also by the whole county recorded and judged, that as the king himself holds his lands free and quiet in his demesne, so the Archbishop of Canterbury holds his lands altogether free and quiet in his demesne. At this plea were present Goisfrid Bishop of Normandy, who was in loco regis, and held his justice; Lanfranc, archbishop, who, as was said, pleaded and proved the whole; the Earl of Kent, viz. the said Odo Bishop of Bayeux; Ernostus Bishop of Rochester; Ægelric, Bishop of Chichester, a very aged man, and most learned in the laws of the land (who, by the command of the king, was brought there in a carriage to discuss and explain the antient customs of the laws); Richard Earl of Tunbridge, Hugo de Mountfort, William de Arces, Haymo the sheriff, and many other barones and other men of other countries also, with the whole of that county, men of much and great authority, French-born and English.'

Penenden Heath, as Lambard observes, lies almost in the middle of Kent, and therefore was very suitable for the assembly of the whole county. He observes that the commodity of the situation itself, and the example of this notable assembly, have been the cause that not only the sheriffs use to hold their county courts, but also to appoint the meeting for Knights of the Parliament most commonly at this place.'* It may be added, as a curious instance of the duration of local customs, that the nomination of representatives for the western division of the county takes place at the present day on Penenden Heath.

It will be observed that in this record the decision is said to have been determined by the 'good and wise men,' and to have been recorded and judged by the whole county. (Et ab. omnibus illis probis et sapientibus hominibus qui affuerunt fuit ita ibi diratiocinatum et etiam a toto comitatu recordatum atque judicatum.) The difference of phrase with respect to the more learned members of the tribunal and the commonalty clearly shows the different nature of their functions: the former determined the law, the latter judged and recorded.

Again, in another cause, mentioned in the Textus Roffensis

* Perambulation of Kent,' p. 239.

6

(cap. 91), a dispute between Gundulf Bishop of Rochester and Pichot Sheriff of Cambridgeshire, in the reign of William I., respecting land at Giselham, the cause was referred to all the men of the county. The king commanded that all the men of that county (omnes illius comitatus homines) should be assembled, and that by their judgment it should be proved whose the land most rightly ought to be.'

In the earlier county courts the ealdorman appears to have uniformly acted as a chief officer. The Laws Edgar (II. § 5) have a provision to this effect: And thrice a year let the borough gemot be held, and twice a year a shire gemot; and let there be present the bishop of the shire and the ealdorman, and there both expound as well the law of God as the secular law.' There is a similar provision in the secular laws of Cnut (§18).* Down to the time of the last-mentioned king the internal regulation of the shire, as well as its political relation to the whole kingdom, were under the immediate guidance and supervision of the ealdorman or duke: the scirgerefa or sheriff ' was little more than his deputy. The new constitution introduced by Cnut reduced the ealdorman to a subordinate position: over several counties was now placed one eorl or earl. From that time the king's writs were directed to the earl, the bishops, and the sheriff of the county, and gradually the old title of ealdorman came to denote a very inferior jurisdiction. In the shire moots held in and after the time of Cnut, the sheriff | seems to have frequently sat without the ealdorman. This was ! evidently the case with respect to the assembly at Ægelnorth's Stone mentioned in a previous page. So also in the great trial at Erith, in which Archbishop Dunstan bore a conspicuous part. Though there is a particular enumeration of persons present, the ealdorman is not mentioned.

A subject of more immediate importance with reference to the investigation of the parliamentary suffrage of later times, is the presence of the inferior classes in the shire mote. There are strong reasons for supposing that the right to attend that assembly remained in the Norman and Plantagenet times ▾ substantially the same as in the Saxon era. There is not the

+ Kemble, 'Saxons in England,' vol. ii. chap. 4. The learned author says, with reference to the Saxon period, Gradually the old title ceases altogether, except in cities.' This, however, is not quite correct. I find that it lingered in counties as late as the reign of Edward I. Aldermen of hundreds are several times mentioned in the Hundred Rolls' with reference to the county of Sussex. See 'Hundred Rolls,' vol. ii. pp. 205, 217.

slightest trace of any alteration of the laws in this respect, and the legislation after the Conquest proceeds evidently on the assumption that the old institution and its usages remained unimpaired. But the knights of the shire, when parliaments I became established, were elected by all persons who had a right 1 to be present in the county court. Hence it becomes indispensable, for the purpose of our enquiry, to ascertain who had that right before the Norman period.

We have very strong evidence that the lowest class of the people of free condition were entitled to be present. A very remarkable document, addressed by the people of Kent to King Æthelstan, referring to Acts passed by his council of Feversham, is entitled in the Latin version, Decretum Episcoporum et aliorum sapientum de Kancia de pace observanda,' and commences as follows: *- Dearest! thy Bishops of Kent and all the Thains of Kentshire, Earls and Villans, give thanks to thee, their dearest lord, because thou has been willing to command us to inquire and consult concerning our peace and concerning our welfare, because there is great need thereof to us both rich and poor.

And this we have begun with all the diligence we could, by the aid of those wise men whom thou has sent to us. Wherefore, dearest lord, the first matter is concerning our Tenth, as to which we are very ready and willing, and supplicantly return thee thanks for thy admonition.

'The second matter is concerning our peace, which all the people desire to be held as thy wise men have established at Greateley, and as also has now been declared in the council at Favresham.'

After other articles specifying various amendments of the laws, the document concludes thus:

Eighth.

That we are all content concerning scutage, as thou has said.

"We pray, Lord, thy clemency, if in this writing there be either too much or too little, that thou wilt order it to be amended according to thy will. And we are devoutly ready for all things which thou wilt command us, which we by any means are able to fulfil.'

Mr. Hallam,† commenting on this document, says: "The whole tenor of this letter, which relates to the laws enacted at the Witenagemot or grand synod of Greatanlea (supposed

*Antient Laws and Institutes of England.'

+ Supplemental Notes to the View of the State of Europe in the Middle Ages' (London, 1848, 8vo.) p. 229.

near Andover), though it expresses approbation of those laws, and repeats some of them, with slight variations, does not in my judgment amount to a distinct enactment of them; and the final words are not very legislative. . . . . It is, moreover, an objection to considering this a formal enactment by the witan of the shire that it runs in the names of the thaini, comites, et villani. Can it be maintained that the ceorls ever formed an integral element of the legislature in the kingdom of Kent?'

To this question, it may be answered that the effect of antient documents ought to be ascertained from the records themselves, and not from preconceived notions of what would be proper to be found in them. The decretum,' just quoted, seems free from obscurity. It is distinctly the act of the whole people of Kent, bishops, nobles, and villans. It thanks the king for his permission to enquire into the laws. Then follows a statement that the people have set about this task with the utmost diligence, with the aid of the wise men whom the king had sent to them. The amendments approved are not mere repetitions of those passed by the king's councils at Greatanlea and Feversham, but differ from them very materially in several particulars. The Kentish decree ratifies generally the enactments of those councils, but adds several entirely new and very important provisions. Therefore it must be understood that the will of the people of Kent was expressed independently in this decretum.' Indeed, that very title shows that it was understood to be an authoritative act, though expressly made subject to the king's assent. The submission to the royal will in the last paragraph does not amount to more than a recognition of the king's right of veto. The same right is recognised in the enacting formula of every bill which passes through parliament at the present day.

But this is not a solitary instance of villans or ceorls being associated with the higher classes in the administration of public affairs. A document,* addressed to people of Kent, respecting the confirmation of the liberties of Christchurch, Canterbury, commences thus: I, Cnut, king, greet Lyfing, archbishop, and Godwine, bishop, and Ælmær, abbot, and Æthelwine, shireman, and Æthelric and all my thanes twelfhynd and twihynd.'† Twihynd is synonymous with villan or ceorl, and the common

*Diplomatarium,' p. 308.

†Twyhynde man; a man whose wer-gild was two hundred shillings. This was the lowest class of freemen, otherwise called ceorls.'

Ceorla freeman of ignoble rank; a churl, twy-hinde man, villanus, illiberalis.'-Antient Laws and Institutes of England: Glossary.

Ꭰ

་

་

6

phrase twelfhynd and twihynd,' like the equally common phrase earl and churl,' denoted freemen from the highest to the lowest. The charter goes on to confirm the immunities granted to Christchurch by King Ethelbyrht. This instrument is addressed to the county as a formal notification of the grant which the king had made to the archbishop. From the dignity of the parties concerned, and the solemnity of the transaction, it may be supposed that the language of this charter was well considered. As in the 'decretum' of Kent, just cited, the shire, as a body politic, is described as comprising, besides the higher classes, the ceorls or villans.

In after times, when parliamentary institutions were established, the practice prevailed for many centuries of sending the statutes at the end of each session to be proclaimed by the 、 sheriff in each county court. A similar practice, but with some material differences, existed among the Anglo-Saxons. After the conclusion of a witenagemot, the reeves carried the chapters down to the several counties and there took the wed or pledge from the freemen that they would abide by what had been enacted.*

Thus, in the 'Judicia Civitatis Lundoniæ,'+ passed in the reign of Ethelstan, we find: That all the witan gave their pledges [weds] altogether to the archbishop, when Elfeah Stybb and Brihtnoth, Odda's son, came to meet the gemot, by the king's command; that each reeve should take the wed in his own shire that they would all hold the "frith " [peace] as King Æthelstan and the witan had counselled it.' And at the commencement of the same collection of laws it is stated that they were confirmed by the oaths and pledges of all, both earls and churls (ægther ge eorlisce ge ceorlisce). Thus, the laws were

required to be ratified by the pledge and promise of the people of all ranks; whereas, in later times, nothing of the kind took 、 place with respect to Acts of Parliament; they were simply proclaimed in the county court, as the most convenient way of making them known. But the acts of the witenagemot were considered to acquire force from the oath which the people took to observe them. This is evident from several passages in the Saxon laws. For instance, in the laws of Æthelstan (iii. § 3) we find a complaint that the oaths and pledges which were given to the king and his wise men are always broken, and less observed than is proper for God and the times.' In another passage of Æthelstan's laws it is said (iv. § 1): Æthelstan the

**

Kemble, 'Saxons in England,' vol. ii. p. 233.

6 Antient Laws and Institutes of England,' p. 97.