Full text of "Local government in Francia and England: a comparison of the local administration and jurisdiction of the Carolingian empire with that of the West Saxon kingdom"

See other formats

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

FRANCIAAND ENGLAND

HELEN M. CAM, M.A.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS

LIBRARY

University

IRVINE

4/6V-

/t-rw».

(

C- LSV- £ (~f j0~\-^.

C>L -lT-»-»-y»

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND

A COMPARISON OF THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION AND

JURISDICTION OF THE CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE WITH

THAT OF THE WEST SAXON KINGDOM

HELEN M. CAM, M.A.

SCHOLAR OF THE ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE ; FELLOW IN HISTORY,
BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, 1908-1909

Xon&on: "dniversttE of Xonfcon

PUBLISHED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS, LTD.
BY HODDER & STOUGHTON, WARWICK SQUARE, E.G.

1912

HODDER AND STOUGHTON
PUBLISHERS TO

THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS

PREFATORY NOTE

THIS essay was written as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Arts in the University of London in 1909. A
few alterations have since been made in the light of recent
publications.

I should like here to express my thanks to Mr. H. W. C.
Davis, of Balliol College, Oxford, and Mr. E. I. Carlyle, of
Lincoln College, Oxford, for their very kind help, the one at
the outset, the other at the completion of my work.

H;M. c.

WORKS TO WHICH REFERENCE
IS MADE

H. Adams. Anglo-Saxon Courts of Law. (In Essays in Anglo-
Saxon Law.) Boston, 1876.

Annales Laurissenses Majores. Ed. Kurze. 1895. Cited as A. L. M.

Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi. Ed. Kurze. 1895. Cited as A. Q. D. E.

Asser. Ed. W. H. Stevenson. 1904.

A. Baldamus. Das Heerwesen unter den spatern Karolingern. 1879.

L. Beauchet. L'organisation judiciaire en France. 1886.

M. M. Bigelow. Placita Anglo-Normannica. 1879.

IF. de G. Birch. Cartularium Saxonicum. 1885-1893. Cited as B.

H. Brunner. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. 1892. Cited as R. G.

H. Brunner. Forschungen zur Geschichte des deutschen und franzo-
sischen Rechtes. 1894. Cited as Forschungen.

H. Brunner. Rechtsgeschichte der Urkunde. 1880.

H. M. Oiadivick, Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions. 1905.

J. Flach. Les origines de 1'ancienne France. 1886-1904.

Fustel de Coulanges. Les origines du systeme feodal. 1890.

Fnstel de Goulanyes. Les transformations de la royaute. 1892.

E. Glasson. Histoire du droit et des institutions de la France. 1889.
P. Guilhiermoz. Essai sur 1'origine de la noblesse en France. 1902.
J. M. Kemble. Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici. 1839 ff. Cited as K.
J. M. Kemlle. The Saxons in England. Ed. Birch. 1876.

M. KroelL L'immunite franque. 1910.

F. Liebermann. Gesetze der Angelsachsen. 1902. In citations from

this work Liebermann's own abbreviations are used, for which
see his page xi.
F. W. Maitland. Domesday Book and Beyond. 1897. Cited as

D. B. and B.
Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Cited as M. G. H.

Buretius and Krause. Capitularia regum Francorum. 1883-1897.
(Legum sectio II.) Citations are made from this work by the
year, page and capitulum of the capitulary. Reference is made
to the first volume unless otherwise indicated.

Zeumer. Formulae Merovingici et Karolini aevi. 1886. (Legum
sectio V.) Citations are made by the name and number of the
formula.

vii

viii WORKS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE

MiMbacher. Diplomata aevi Karolini. 1906. Cited as Miihlbacher,

D.K.

Dummler. Epistolae Karolini aevi —
I. S. Bonifatii Epistolae.

Codex Carolinus. 1892.
II. Alcuini Epistolae. 1895.
III. Einharti Epistolae.

Leonis III. Epistolae. 1897-1899.

E. Miihlbacher. Deutsche Geschichte unter den Karolingern. 1895.
A. S. Napier and W. H. Stevenson. The Crawford Collection of Early

Charters and Documents. 1895.

F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland. History of English Law. 1895.

Cited as P. and M.

A. Prenzel. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Kriegsverfassung unter den
Karolingern. Diss. Leipzig. 1887.

G. Richter. Annalen der deutschen Geschichte im Mittelalter. 1873-

1898.

P. Roth. Geschichte des Benefizial Wesens. 1850. Cited as B. W.
P. Roth. Feudalitat und Unterthanenverband. 1863. Cited as F. U.
J. H. Round. Feudal England. 1895. Cited as F. E.
H. Se~e. Les classes ruralos et le regime domanial en France au moyen

age. 1901.

R. Sohm. Die frankische Reichs- und Gerichtsverfassung. 1871.
P. Vinogradoff. The Growth of the Manor. 1905.
P. Vinogradoff. English Society in the Eleventh Century. 1908.
P. Viollet. Histoire des institutions politiques de la France. 1896.
G. Waitz. Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte. Zweite Auflage. Vol.

III. 1883 ; IV. 1885.

The English Historical Review. Cited as E. H. R.
Revue Historique. Cited as R. H.
Historische Vierteljahrschrift. Cited as Hist. Viertelj.
Domesday Book. Cited as Dd.

ANALYSIS

CHAP. PAO«

I INTRODUCTION . - 1

II THE RELATIONS OP FRANCIA AND ENGLAND IN THE

EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURIES ... 6

III THE GOVERNMENT OP THE COMITATUS AND THE

SHIRE 18

1. THE COMITATUS, 768-840.

(a) The Relation of the Count to the Central Government.

(b) The Count's District.

(d) The Count's Subordinates.

(e) Popular Control.

2. THE COMITATUS, 840-887.

3. THE SHIRE TO 871.

(a) Kent.

(b) Mercia.

4. THE SHIRE, 871-925.

(a) The District.

(b) The Officials.

5. THE SHIRE, 925-1034.

(a) The Ealdonnan.

(b) The Shiremoot.

6. THE HUNDRED.

7. THE BURS.

IV THE BENEFICE AND THE VASSAL SYSTEM . . 65

1. LORDSHIP AND VASSALAGE IN FRANCIA.

(a) Vasai dominici.

(b) The Royal Benefice.

(d) The Relation of the Benefice to the Vassal System.

(e) The Personal Relations of Senior and Vassua.

2. LORDSHIP AND VASSALAGE IN ENGLAND.

(a) The King's Thegn and Bookland.

(b) The Hlafvrd and the Laen.

(e) The Personal Relations of Lord and Man.

x ANALYSIS

CHAP. PAOK

V THE IMMUNITY . . . . . .100

1. THE FRANKISH IMMTTNITY.

2. THE ANGLO-SAXON FRANCHISE.

3. THE LANDS OF THE Fisc : A COMPARISON OF Dx VTLLIS

AND BE SCEADWISAN GxREFAX.

VI THE CABOLINGIAN AND WEST SAXON MILITARY

SYSTEMS 128

1. THE CAROLINQIAN ARMY.

(a) The Summons.

(b) The Obligation to Serve.

(d) The Leaders.

2. THE WEST SAXON AKMY.

(a) The Summons.

(6) The Obligation to Serv«.

(d) The Leaders.

(e) Cavalry.

VII CONCLUSION . . . 154

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN FRANCIA
AND ENGLAND

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

FROM the time of Palgrave onwards, historians, both
English and foreign, have discovered analogies between
Frankish and Anglo-Saxon institutions. Some writers,
notably Stubbs, have pointed out resemblances so close
as to provoke inquiry into the relation between the two
sets of institutions. Has one country borrowed from the
other, or are the features they have in common part of
their inheritance from a distant past, or, again, arethe
resemblances merely coincidences resulting from different
processes ?

The Roman heritage gave to the Frankish Empire not
only a semblance of unity, a centralized organization
and a spurious efficiency, but also the means of putting
them on record, with the additional rigidity likely to
follow from that power. In the Capitularies of the Caro-
lingian kings, disjointed, ambiguous and artificial as
they are, can be traced out with considerable certainty
the framework of a governmental system that is fairly
comprehensive and consistent. Within its limits turbulent
forces are at work, under the pressure of which the frame-
work is destined to fall in pieces, but we are given an
impression of unity, subordination and centralization.

On the other side are the Anglo-Saxon laws and charters,

2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

both fragmentary and confused. The fact that there
are two official languages instead of one may make for
greater accuracy, but certainly not for greater simplicity.
There are great gaps in our material; between Ine and
Alfred no legislation and but few other records. The
scanty light we have shines in turn upon Northumbria,
Mercia and Wessex ; we have enough material to see that
there were wide local differences without having the means
accurately to define those differences. Our govern-
mental system has to be pieced together from a series of
facts or references gathered at very different dates, instead
of from a long series of royal instruments issuing from
the royal chapel, all within little more than a century.
It is true that in Francia charters and formulae and other
private documents introduce many questions of difficulty ;
but the abundance of material helps to solve its own
problems.

When the question of the relation of the two systems
arose, the natural inclination was to suppose that the
less perfect and less symmetrical would borrow the
institutions of the more centralized and complete. It
might be thought that England, owing religion and all
that religion involved to the Continent, would seek there
also for governmental improvements. Believers in a
close relation between the two countries have as a rule
taken this view of the question. But, as is well known,
and as we shall try to show, the debt was by no means all
on England's side, and a recent writer 1 has suggested that
at least one new feature of Carolingian policy and ad-
ministration was borrowed from England. His suggestion
will be noticed, but it does not really touch our problem,
which is limited to the relation of West Saxon and
Carolingian local institutions, and can only incidentally
refer to those of Northumbria.

1 Guilhiermoz, Origines de la noblesse.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 3

Materials are lacking for the construction of a sketch
of West Saxon institutions under the contemporaries of
the earlier Carolingians. It is only with Alfred that we
can pick up the thread dropped in the eighth century, and
attempt to estimate what influence, if any, foreign rela-
tions have had upon governmental and local institutions.
If there was a code of Egbert, it is lost. In Alfred's
prologue, however, in which he speaks of the codes of
Ine, ^thelberht and Offa, no reference is made to any
other West Saxon code. It is highly probable, therefore,
that none such existed. In very many respects, also,
Alfred's reign is one of construction and innovation.
The prologue to the laws reflects that respect for con-
servatism which is learnt by the practical reformer. " I
dared not thrust myself forward, to write down much of
my own, for it was unknown to me how that would please
those that come after me." A king who was at once a
reformer and a pioneer ; who formed new laws to supple-
ment the old ones ; who recast the classics for the benefit
of his people ; who found new means to meet new military
problems, frankly taking the best wherever he found it
and applying it to the matter in hand ; such a one might
well look across the Channel for political no less than for
literary schoolmasters. In a reign of this constructive
activity we might well seek for the traces of innovation
and adaptation.

Such innovation could hardly be based on the decadence
and disorder of the later Carolingian rule. By whatever
channel such an influence could arrive, whether by way
of Mercia or directly from Francia, whether at an earlier
date through Alfred's grandfather, or at a later date
through Alfred's contemporaries, it is from the system
of Charles the Great that a foreigner would draw inspira-
tion. The system might not fit the facts of local diverg-
ence even in Charles's own days ; later it might not agree
B 2

4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

with the practice of an empire that was already divided
and decentralized, an empire only in name ; but it was
the official theory of government. The numberless
references to the collection of Ansegis which we find in
the later Capitularies show that though facts might have
altered, the ideal polity was the same that it had been
before the fraternal wars of Lewis's reign.

We are compelled, therefore, to base our comparison
on conditions separated by a century, and to set limits
to the problem. The chief characteristics of the Frankish
system may be traced in the period 768-840, and though
occasional references will be made to later developments,
this will be the main theme. In Wessex, the reigns of
Alfred and Edward the Elder will be the chief period,
though here we are more dependent on later material, and
illustrations will be drawn from other periods.

In attempting to investigate this problem the evidence
for the connection between Francia and England before
and during the Carolingian period will first be considered ;
and then the local governmental system in each country
will be described and compared. The benefice and the
vassal system in Francia will be compared with what is
known of the vassal class and dependent land tenures in
England, and an attempt will be made to estimate the
extent of the growth of private jurisdictions. The
immunity will be compared with the early English
franchise, and the position of the royal villa with that of
the land of the fisc in England. The military systems
of the two countries will be compared also, based as they
are in each country on the local unit. Lastly, an attempt
will be made to sum up the results of the study.

If no practical or even certain results are attained by
this investigation, the plea of M. Langlois may be offered
in part excuse. " If historical science does not consist
solely in the critical enumeration of past phenomena, but

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 5

rather in the examination of the laws which regulate the
succession of such phenomena, clearly its chief agent
must be the comparison of such phenomena as run
parallel in different nations ; for there is no surer means of
knowing the conditions and causes of a particular fact
than to compare it with analogous facts." l

1 E. H. R., 1890, p. 259.

CHAPTER II

RELATIONS OF FRANCIA AND ENGLAND IN THE
EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURIES

STUBBS, in his lecture on the " Beginnings of the Foreign
Policy of England in the Middle Ages," l classifies English
relations with the Continent under the three following
heads : ecclesiastical matters ; royal and noble connec-
tions; and commercial relations. His treatment is not
exhaustive, nor his classification entirely satisfactory.
A better arrangement would seem to be : literary and
ecclesiastical matters (the two being practically insepar-
able) ; political matters ; commercial matters. From
the facts classified under these heads may be deduced the
possibility or probability of a connection in institutional
matters between the England of the West Saxon
Supremacy and the Continent of the Carolingian period.

I. It has been often pointed out that England was in
part repaying an old debt when she sent her missionary
priests and bishops to Friesland, Saxony and Bavaria in
the seventh and eighth centuries. From Wilfred's mission
to Friesland in 678 to the death of Boniface in 755 a
constant stream of teachers left this island for the
Continent. Of these Boniface was not the only one to
reach high position ; Lull of Mainz, Willibald of Eichstadt,
and Burkhard of Wurzburg were all English born.
Their work, moreover, was not all pioneer. Boniface
in especial had a large share in the work of purifying
the Frankish Church from the abuses of the times. His

1 Stubbs, Early English History, p. 354 fl. Ed. Hassall, 1906.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 7

influence is again traceable in the Capitulare Liptinense 1
of 743, which in all probability records the compromise
over Church lands made by Pippin, and confirmed by his
son at a later date. Brunner has pointed out also that
the rite of unction appears to have been introduced from
England in 753, when Boniface anointed Pippin king of
the Franks.2 We may note also the presence of English
bishops at the famous Council of Frankfort in 794.

Besides this religious assistance afforded by England
to Frankland, literary help was given. If Boniface re-
formed the Church in Gaul, and founded the Church in
Germany, Alcuin had his part to play as a missionary of
culture. Notwithstanding the learning of the Italian
and Irish scholars at the court of Charles the Great,
Alcuin had the first place there from his arrival in 781
to his retirement to Tours in 795. Alcuin represented
the traditions of Northumbrian learning ; he was the last
great scholar of Bede's school. His position, resting as
it did on the personal whim of the Emperor, was not
altogether secure; his intellectual pre-eminence was
hardly questioned so long as he remained at court.

In the case of both Alcuin and Boniface we have
abundance of evidence that the relations with the mother
country were kept up. Of the hundred and fifty letters
of Boniface and Lull printed by Diimmler, thirty-five
at least are addressed to English monasteries or indi-
viduals. One letter from Boniface and seven other
English bishops in Germany to King ^Ethelbald refers
to the latter's effectual repression of feuds among his
nobles.3 On the other hand, ^Ethelbald is rebuked for

1 743. 28, 2. Cf. Boniface, Ep. 60.

2 Brunner, R. G., II. p. 19. A. L. M., 750. " Pippinus . . . electus
eat ad regem, et unctus per manum santae memoriae Bonifacii
archiepiscopi.'!

3 Boniface, Ep. 73, quoted by William of Malmesbury, G. Begum,
I. 80. R. S.

8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

his evil life, and the invasions of the Saracens in Southern
Gaul are quoted as an example of the evils he may bring
on England by his sins. The majority of the letters are
moral and didactic in tone, and do not refer particularly
to public events. They reveal, however, the close
relations between the clergy of Francia and England.
Gifts are exchanged, a copy of Bede is asked for in ex-
change for a copy of the Epistles of Gregory.1 Cloaks
and coverlets of goat's hair are sent as gifts.2 A report
of the General Council of 747 is given in a letter to Cuth-
bert of Canterbury, in which Boniface suggests that some
restraint should be put on the pilgrimages of women to
Rome, since these too often result in their downfall, and
disgrace to the English Church.3 The international
position of the Church is well illustrated in this corre-
spondence.

The letters of Alcuin are similar in character to
those of Boniface. Many of them are directed to
kings or princesses,4 but even these are mainly didactic
in purport.5 He writes to the monks of York, of Wear-
mouth or of Yarrow, the Archbishop of York, to Lindis-
farne, to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to private
friends. His tone throughout is that of the exile ; 6 he
is continually referring to his hopes of coming over to
England again. He is keenly interested in Church
politics at home ; while as to secular politics he preserves
a non-committal attitude, exhorting kings and ex-kings
alike to repentance and virtue.7 He is impressed by

1 Boniface, Ep. 75. 2 Ibid., Ep. 75, 76. 3 Ibid., Ep. 78.

« Ale., Ep. 16, 18, 30, 61, 79, 101, 102, 105, 108, 109.

5 The exceptions will be mentioned below.

6 Note letter to JSthelred of Northumbria. " Duplici germanitate
convives sum us, unius civitatis in Christo, id est matris ecclesiae
filii, et unius patriae indigene . . . Ecce trecentis et quinquagenta annis
quod nos nostrique patres huius pulcherrime patrie incole sumus."
Ep. 16.

7 Al«., Ep. 108, 109.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 9

the greatness of Offa, whilst he laments his bloodshedding
propensities, and views the early death of Ecgfrith as
an instance of the visitation of the father's sins on
the children.1 In one of his letters there is a possible
reference to the lost code of Offa.2 His first love is for
Northumbria, to him a different gens from Mercia ; 3 but
he writes, as we have seen, to all parts of England. His
letters form a unique and valuable contribution to the
history of the eighth century, in spite of their vagueness
and silence on the topics where we are most anxious for
information.4

Thus in the eighth century both Northumbria and
Wessex bore their part in the advancement of religion
and learning in Europe. In the ninth century the tables
were turned. Francia was now the centre of learning;
internal divisions and external attacks had overwhelmed
the power and the culture of Northumbria together,
and Alfred, seeking to restore letters in Wessex, found
himself obliged to send across the Channel to secure a
teacher for his ignorant clergy and young noblemen.
Grimbald of St. Bertin and John the old Saxon were
sent ; and a letter is extant in which Fulco of Reims
commends Grimbald to Alfred,5 though its authenticity
has been questioned. Through these channels Frankish
learning might be directly disseminated in England,
whilst there is evidence that it was indirectly conveyed
by other means. Besides Grimbald and John, teachers
came to Alfred from Mercia; Werfrith of Worcester,
Plegmund, ^Ethelstan and Werewulf ;6 and, as we shall

1 Ale., Ep. 122.

2 /6tdL, Ep. 122, " mores bonos . . . observent, quos beatae memoriae
Ofla illis instituit."

3 Ibid., Ep. 122.

4 Dr. von Sickel (Alcuinstudien, p. 467) suggests that the letters
containing more important political news or opinions were destroyed
at once by the recipients.

5 B. 556. 6 Asser, c. 77.

10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

see, the relations of Mercia and Francia were close in the
reigns of Offa and Charles. From Alfred's preface to
the Cura Pastoralis it may be inferred that Mercia was
the chief home of learning in England at the beginning
of his reign.1 Here, then, may be found another channel
for Frankish influence. Again, the Vita Caroli speaks
of Charles's relations with the Scots or Irish,2 with whom
Alfred had dealings,3 whilst Asser shows traces of both
Frankish and Irish influence.

The evidence afforded by Asser's Life has been indicated
with great completeness by Mr. Stevenson.4 In matters of
style the relation is unmistakable ; not only hi the general
construction of the work, which is clearly modelled on
Einhard's Vita Caroli,5 and has a considerable resem-
blance to the lives of Lewis the Pious by Theganus and by
the Astronomer, but also in the use of words of Frankish
origin or with Frankish application. Instances of this
are Ministeriales,6 Gatti 7 (for Franks), Capellanus,8
Theotisci,9 fiscus,10 castella11 (for castle), curtum,12 indi-
culus 13 (letter), satelles,u jasellus,^ senior 16 (for lord),
cambra 17 (camera). Mr. Stevenson discovers traces of
Celtic (Breton) influence in the use of the word famen,18
suggests that a Gaulish version of the Bible was used by
Asser instead of the Vulgate,19 and points out at least one

1 " There were very few on this side of the Humber who could
understand their rituals in English or translate a letter from Latin
into English, and I believe that there were not many beyond the
Humber. I cannot remember a single one south of the Thames."

2 Vila Caroli, c. xvi.

3 Asser, c. 91, 102; and 76, " Franci autem multi, Frisipnes, Galli,
pagani, Britones et Scotti, Armorici sponte se suo dominio subdi-
derunt.n

4 Asser's Life of King Alfred, ed. W. H. Stevenson, 1904.

5 Cf. esp. Vita Caroli, Preface ; and Asser, c. 73.

• C. 70. 7 C. 70. 8 C. 77, 104.

9 C. 13. 10 C. 102. » C. 91.

12 C. 22, 75, 81, 100. 13 C. 79. 14 C. 100.

15 C. 53, 55. 16 C. 13, 97. 17 C. 88, 91.

18 C. 79. 19 Stevenson, Introduction, xciv.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 11

simile dear to Alcuin and other Frankish scholars.1 In
addition to the traces of Frankish influence on Asser's
style, there is evidence of personal knowledge of Frankish
conditions on his part. Details supplementing the narra-
tive of the Chronicle which indicate a minuter knowledge
of Francia are found in chapters 61, 68, 70, 82, 84 and
85 ; whilst in the account of the eclipse of 878 or 879 2
Mr. Stevenson, with great ingenuity, has discovered in-
dications that the author saw the eclipse from Francia,
not from England, and suggests Fulda as a likely spot.3

The land-book itself, as used in England from the
seventh century onwards, is of foreign origin. Brunner 4
believes that it came from Roman law, probably direct
from Italy, but possibly by way of Francia. It is inter-
esting, however, to note the appearance of some words
of Frankish origin in the charters of Egbert's reign and
later. Such are graphic 5 and parafrithis,6 both of which
occur in charters passed as genuine by Kemble. Vasallus 7
and beneficium 8 do not occur till a later date. Stubbs,
in his preface to the Councils,9 indicates the close rela-
tion of English and Frankish Penitentials and Canons.
The Liber Legum Ecclesiastorum, printed by Thorpe as
" Ecclesiastical Institutes," is a translation of a work by
Theodulf of Orleans. The so-called Penitential of Theo-
dore contains quotations from the Admonitio Generates
of 789.10 The so-called Penitential of Egbert is mainly
a translation of a work by Halitgar of Cambray (floruit
825). Boniface's letters, as we have seen, indicate a
constant interchange of manuscripts between England

1 C. 76. '- C. 59; v. Stevenson, p. 280 ff.

3 Note also the evidence afforded by the rapid extension of the
Carolingian minuscule.

4 Brunner, Urkunde, p. 187. 5 B. 413.

6 B. 395 (A.D. 828), 413, 544.

7 Found in B. 601 (A.D. 903), 769, 895, 956, 1197.

8 B. 1136 (A.D. 964).

9 Haddan and Stubbs, I. xiii. 10 789. 53-62.

12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

and Francia, and the confused condition in which Stubbs
found the Penitentials is directly traceable to their biter-
national use.

Among ecclesiastical channels of influence should per-
haps be reckoned the intercourse afforded by pilgrimages.
All who went to Rome would pass through Francia, and
the number of pilgrims may be inferred from the letter
referred to above, as well as from other indications.1
Free passage to the pilgrim was one of the terms of agree-
ment between Offa and Charles 2 in 790. We may note,
on the other hand, that a charter of Egbert's refers to
the Gatti et Brittones who are peregrini to Abingdon.3

Thus all the evidence goes to show that there was a
very intimate relation in ecclesiastical and literary matters
between Francia and England in the eighth and ninth
centuries.

II. The political relations of England and Francia at
this period must be inferred from a series of isolated facts,
whose importance it is difficult to appraise on account
of the scantiness of the sources. Marriage alliances make
up a great part of the evidence. Alfred's father ^Ethel-
wulf takes as his second wife Judith, daughter of Charles
the Bald, in 855, on his return from Rome. Alfred's
daughter JSlfthryth marries Baldwin of Flanders. The
four daughters of Edward the Elder marry Otto I of
Germany, Charles the Simple, Hugh the White, and
William of Aquitaine.4 These marriages should be
viewed probably as indications, not as causes, of the
relations between the two countries.5 The influence of
the queen may be, as Mr. Larson has pointed out,6 of

1 Ann. Bert., 839. Asser, c. 11, etc. 2 Ale., Ep. 100.

3 B. 413. * .flSthelweard, Prologue.

5 Mr. Plummet (Two Saxon Chronicles, II. p. 80) suggests that the
marriage of Judith and yEthelwulf was due to a desire for an alliance
against the Danes.

6 L. M. Larson, The King's Household before the Norman Conquest,
p. 194. 1904.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 13

great importance in the court and kingdom, but from
what Asser tells of Judith, her influence is not likely
greatly to have modified existing conditions in Wessex.1
Indications as to the international politics of the period
may be gathered from various sources. Simon of Dur-
ham speaks of the correspondence of Eadberht of North-
umbria and Pippin,2 but we have no means of knowing
on what authority the statement is based. Boniface's
letters are, as we have seen, addressed not merely to
bishops and monks, but also to kings and princes. For
the reign of Charles the Great the Frankish Annals and
Alcuin's letters are our chief sources, but it is to the Oesta
Abbatum Fontanellensium 3 that we owe our knowledge
of the marriage negotiations between Charles the Great
and Offa in 788. Charles sought the hand of Offa's
daughter for his son, but Offa suggested also that his
son should marry Charles's daughter; in consequence
the negotiations broke down, and Charles threatened to
close the Frankish ports to English merchants. Earlier
letters, both those between Charles and the Pope, and
those between Charles and Offa, indicate intimacy and
friendliness ; 4 whilst those of a later date show that
friendly relations had been restored.5 Alcuin's letters
show him endeavouring to act as a mediator between
the two kings.6 He also promises the monks of Lindis-
farne to speak to Charles on their behalf after the sack
of their monastery in 793. 7 His letter of 796 describes

1 Asser, c. 17.

2 Sim. Dunelm., Hist Eccl. Dunelm, Lib. II. c. iii.

3 Oesta Abbatum Fontanellensium, c. 16. " Mult is vicibus ... ad
praefatum regem Offam legationibus functus est (Gervoldus). Novis-
sirae vero propter filiam ejuisdem regis quam in conjugiuui
expostulabat Carolus junior, sed illo hoc non acquiescente nisi Berta,
filia Caroli magni ejus filio nuptui traderetur, aliquantulum rex poten-
tissimus commotus, praecepit ut nemo de Britannia insula ao gente
Anglorum mercirnonii causa littus oceani maris attingeret in Gallia."

4 Ale., Ep. 87. 6 Ibid., Ep. 85, 100.
6 Ibid., Ep. 7, 9, 82. 7 Ibid., Ep. 20.

14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

Charles's wrath at the news of the death of ./Ethelred
of Northumbria.1 The annals for 809 show friendly
relations still subsisting between Mercia and Francia;
a papal legate, captured by pirates, and carried off to
Britain, was there redeemed by Cenwulf, Ecgfrith's
successor, and sent back safely to Rome. In this year
also Charles extended his hospitality to Eardwulf of
Northumbria, ^Ethelred's son, who was driven from his
kingdom in 806. He set him on his way to Rome.2
There is evidence of his kindly activity on Eardwulf's
behalf in his correspondence with Leo III. There seems,
however, no reason to accept the statement of the
Annales Lindisfarnenses that Eardwulf " duxit uxorem
filiam regis Caroli " in the face of Einhard's statements.3

Charles's relations with Wessex are perhaps of most
interest in connection with our main theme. Egbert,
driven from Wessex in 787, took refuge with Offa, and
came on to Charles's court in 788, where he remained
until his accession in 802 to the throne of Wessex.4
These fourteen years offer a wide field for conjecture, but
the silence of the Frankish Annals forbids any determina-
tion of the probable effects on Egbert of his stay in
Francia. It may be noted, by the way, that the courtesy
was repaid hi kind when Athelstan received his young
nephew, Louis d'Outremer, at a later date.

With these authentic records of royal fugitives may be
compared the story told by Asser of Eadburh — daughter
of Offa and wife of Beorhtric, — who came to Charles's
court, having poisoned her West Saxon husband, and was
offered the choice between Charles himself and one of

1 Ale., Ep. 101.

2 A. L. M., 808. Leonis HI. Ep. 2, 3. M. 0. H., Ep. Kar. Aevi,
III. p. 89-92.

3 Vita Caroli, c. 19. " Nullam earum cuiquam aut suorum aut
exterorum nuptuni dare voluit, sed omnea secum usque ad obituin
suum in domo sua retimiit."

* A. 8. Chran., 836.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 15

his sons as a husband. She chose the son, and was in
consequence rejected by Charles himself, who, however,
made her abbess of a convent.1 There is, as Mr. Stevenson
says, no inherent impossibility in the story; but it has
a romantic tone, and is unconfirmed by any other
evidence.

There is thus material for belief in a fairly close connec-
tion between English and Prankish politics in the reign
of Charles. Under Lewis the Pious there is no sign of
diplomatic relations; and the silence of the Chronicle
at this period contrasts with the later accounts of the
invasion of the Northmen from year to year, which in
the reign of Alfred reflect a realization of unity of interest.2

III. There are few indications of the commercial
relations of England and Francia. As far back as 710
a charter of Childebert's had referred to the toll paid by
the Saxons and others from far.3 M. Flach points out 4
the significance of the fact that the word used for strangers
in Francia — albani — means British. When Charles and
Offa quarrelled in 789, Charles forbade all trade in English
goods within his kingdom.5 When friendly relations
were restored, Charles, in promising a free passage to
English pilgrims to Rome, stipulated that they should
be genuine pilgrims, not merchants and smugglers.6
In the same letter he promised that English merchants

1 Asser, c. 15.

2 See the years 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 886, 887, 890, 891, 893, 897.

3 Bouquet, IV. 684. It is possible, however, that the continental
Saxons may be meant.

4 Flach, I. p. 159.

5 The Gesia Abbahnn Fontanellensium says that Charles threatened
to close all Frankish ports to English vessels, but was dissuaded from
doing so by Gerwold. Alcuin's letter, however (Ep. 7), declares that
Charles and Offa have each excluded the other's merchants. " Ali-
quid . . . dissensionis . . . nuper inter regem Karolum et regem
Offam exortum est, ita ut utrimque navigatio interdicta negotiantibus
cessat.'1

6 Ale., Ep. 100.

16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

should be under the royal protection, according to old
custom, and should have direct appeal to him, declaring
that Frankish merchants would likewise appeal to Offa
in case of suffering any attack. Giles suggests that this
trade consisted to some extent in gold-work of a kind like
that on King Alfred's jewel.1 Again there was, it seems,
a demand for English cloaks.2 Evidence of close com-
mercial relations is to be found in the coinage of the two
countries. The question is complicated and somewhat
technical; it has, however, been shown conclusively3
that the change from the earlier English Sceatt currency
to the later currency of pennies is a result of Frankish
influence. The very name Mancus 4 is an unmistakable
proof of foreign origin, being Arabic in etymology, and
coming probably from Spain, but possibly from the East,
with which Charles had diplomatic relations.5 Foreign
bodies are found owning land in England. ^Elfthryth
makes a grant in 918 of land to an abbey of Ghent,6
and St. Denys 7 also held land in England.8

IV. General resemblances in institutions between the
two countries have been traced. It appears possible
that Alfred's court school 9 owes something to that of
Charles the Great for the young nobles. It has been
suggested that Alfred borrowed a system of Missi Dominici

1 Memorials of King Alfred, p. 333. (1863.)

2 Ale., Ep. 100. Charles to Offa. " Nostri de prolixitate sagorum
deposcunt ; ut tales iubeatis fieri, quibus antiquis temporibus ad nos
venire solebant."

3 Seebohm, Tribal Custom in A.-S. Law ; York Powell, E. H. R.,
p. 133, 1890; Chadwick, p. 5.

4 Chadwick, p. 11. Mancus is first found in Frankish charters 778,
in English Charters 799.

6 Vita Caroli, c. 16. 6 B. 661.

7 Mr. Stevenson (E. H. JR., p. 741, 1891), though proving that the four
charters to St. Denys given in the Cartularium Saxonicum are all
forgeries, thinks that they relate to genuine grants.

8 We may note also the employment of Frisian sailors by Alfred.
Chron., 885, 897.

» Asser, c. 76, 102.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 17

from Charles, but the theory is based upon an allusion
in Asser which might well be interpreted in a more
general sense.1 Alfred's manner of administering justice
in person has been paralleled with that of Charles, but
again the descriptions are too general to be of much real
value.2 The divisions of the kingdom on the death of
^Ethelwulf, and indeed before it, and on the death of his
sons, have been likened to Frankish Divisiones Eegnorum ;
but here, again, we have to do with a custom that was
pretty generally diffused, and is easily explicable with-
out a theory of direct imitation. Some inferences may
perhaps be drawn from Asser's use of the word paga to
translate shire, the word being peculiar to him. It is
just as likely, however, to imply a false analogy as any
direct relation of the pagus to the shire. Into the possi-
bility of such a relation an inquiry will be attempted
below.

It has long been the fashion to compare the work and
the position of Alfred with those of Charles the Great.
It may be fairly said that such a parallelism is the result
of a love of analogies not well grounded on facts. Beyond
the literary revivals there is hardly a resemblance to be
found that does not require considerable exaggeration to
become pointed. On the wider question of institutions,
however, it is harder to put and to answer the question.
The relation of Alfred's organization of local government
to that of the Frankish Empire cannot be dismissed
summarily.

1 Asser, c. 106. 2 Ibid., c. 105-106 ; B. 591 ; Vita Caroli, c. 24.

CHAPTER III

THE GOVERNMENT OP THE COMITATTJS AND THE
SHIRE

1. The Comitatus, 768-840.

Comparatively speaking, there is plenty of material
from which to deduce both the theory and the practice
of local government under the Carolingians. The
Capitularies and other sources give us evidence of the
ideal relations of the various members of the adminis-
trative system ; and also of the abuses which forbade the
realization of those ideals.

Thus it is clear that theoretically the emperor is the
central point of the organization. The picture drawn by
Fustel de Coulanges of the magnificent position of
Charlemagne at the heart of the empire,1 with all things
dependent on or radiating from him, may perhaps be
accepted as the ideal at which the emperor aimed, but
can hardly be considered a faithful representation of facts.
It is at least as clear that the count is practically the
backbone of the system at this period, setting aside all
questions of origins.

(a) The Relation of the Count to the Central Government.

His dependence on the king is, however, well marked.
The Diplomata show a large and constantly varying body
of counts hi attendance on the king;2 the Capitularies,
and Hincmar's De Ordine Palatii show him co-operating

1 Fustel de Coulanges, Transformations de la royaute, p. 614.

2 Miihlbacher, Diplomata, Nos. 63, 65, 102, 110, 197, 204, 216, etc.
The average number of names mentioned is six or seven; the same
name is very seldom found twice.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 19

in the forming of Capitularies.1 The count is educated
at the royal court, and is bound to report himself there
annually, probably on the occasion of the placitum generate
which he is bound to attend.2 The Capitularies represent
him as sending a missus with the yearly report at about
Easter time.3

The count is appointed by the king., and his office is
not hereditary. It is held apparently for life, or so long
as its holder does not forfeit it by misconduct.4 The
Admonitio of Lewis the Pious (823-825), represents well
the official relations of the count and the emperor.
11 Monemus vestram fidelitatem ut memores sitis fidei
nobis promissae et in parte ministerii nostri vobis oom-
missi, in pace videlicet et iustitia facienda vos metipsos
coram Deo et . . . hominibus tales exhibeatis ut et nostri
veri adiutores et populi conservatores iusti dici et vocari
possitis . . . Etsi aliqua persona in aliquo vobis impedi-
mentum fuerit nobis illud notum fiat, ut nostra auctori-
tate adiuti ministerium vestrum digna adimplere possi-
tis." 5 This represents the system of government as
it should be.

On the other hand, the local independence of the count
and his abuse of his powers is proved on every hand by
the restrictions and prohibitions contained in the Capitu-
laries. His independence and his local authority at once
are strengthened by the manner in which he receives a
recompense for his service. He is not paid directly by
the king, but various privileges and possessions are
attached to the county itself. He has a special wer ; 6

1 De Ord. Pal., c. 35. The counts and the other magnates debate
apart. 803. 112; 801-813. 170; 811. 161, 1.

2 782/6. 191; 803. 116,14; 829,11. 9.

3 781/6. 193, 10.

4 779. 49, 11 ; 782. 192, 7. See instances quoted by F. de C., Trans-
formations de la royaute, p. 425-6.

8 823-825. 304, 8. 8 Lex Chamav., c. 7.

20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

he has the right to exact certain services as a royal
official ; 1 he has the third part of all freda 2 and of other
dues ; and he has the enjoyment either of a royal benefice 3
or of certain lands attached to the county.4 Thus he
is a great local landowner as well as a representative
of the central government,5 and his relations with his
official subordinates tend to approximate to those of
any lord with any vassal. His vassals have a special
duty of suit at his courts.6 He may have an advocate
to manage his large estates, and is forbidden to appoint
his centenarius to the position.7 The very perfection
of the Carolingian hierarchy paves the way for local
independence ; the tie between the count and the cen-
tenarius is closer than that between the count and the
king. The count takes advantage of his double position
to grant out the lands of the fisc or convert them to his
own uses.8 In the capitularies, especially the Italian
capitularies, there are signs of his oppression of the

1 826. 315, 10.

2 790. 201, 5; 811. 166, 2. Possibly some other payments—
" Solidum unum de notitia." 801/14. 145, 2.

3 806. 131, 6.

4 This land is distinct from the royal benefices as still forming a
part of the lands of the fisc. Bouquet, VI. 509 (817) : " de fisco nostro
quern R. comes in ministerium habet.'* Cf. 864 II. 314, 8 : " Villis
quae sunt de comitatibus.'1 The land attached to the county comes
to bear the name comitatus itself, and can be transferred to another than
the count. Form. Imp., 3. A count exchanges land, " ex comitatu
suo aut benefitio suo." 832. II. 64, 8. " Comitatus pertinentia
quae comites non habent." Waitz, IV. p. 165 ff., gives instances.
Occasional references are also found to terra vicarialis, and vicecomitalis
(Poupardin, Le royaume de Provence, pp. 373-4).

5 Thus he receives a grant of land from the king. His lands are
referred to : Muhlbacher, D.K. p. 244. He exchanges land with the
bishop; ibid., 275. Cf. Form. Imp., 3, 36. He is permitted to divide
his lands among his sons : D. K., p. 280. Reference is here possibly
made to a royal benefice. Einhard's letters again show us the count
as a local magnate rather than a royal official : v. Ep. 48, 58.

« 809. 148, 5.

7 819. 290, 19.

8 Muhlbacher, D. K. 224; I. 217, 9; 806. 131, 6. Note also the
command against afforestation, 819. 291, 22.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 21

pagenses by unjust exaction of services and of tolls.1
The formulae show the count enslaving free men.2 The
capitularies give proof that he abuses his military position
by forcing men to go to the host till they are beggared,3
by depriving men of their weapons, and by exacting fines
twice over.4 He abuses his judicial powers not only by
taking bribes,5 but also by holding placita frequently for
the purpose of imposing fines for non-attendance ; 6 whilst,
on the other hand, he neglects his duties to go hunting,
or holds placita when he is not sober.7

Such evidence as this must be borne in mind when the
position and the duties of the count are being considered.

(b) The Count's District.

The social and military position of the dux is in all
probability superior to that of the comes ; nevertheless
the comitatus or pagus,8 and not the ducatus, is the
administrative unit of the empire. During the earlier
Carolingian period, indeed, the ducatus has no very
definite historical significance. The missi dominici pay
their visits of inspection by counties.9 The county
is the limit of the count's jurisdiction ; 10 witnesses
before him must be good men of the county,11 and
the placitum majus is an assembly of all the natives in

I 801. 144, 2; 790. 201, 13; 815. 261, 1; cp. 806/10, 211.

- Form. Imp., 5. 14. 3 811. 165, 2, 3. 4 808. 138, 6.

5 790? 70, 28; 801. 240; 802? 103, 38; 813. 174, 10; 819.
291, 21.
0 781/810.207,12; 816.270,3.

7 789.63, 17; 803. 116,15.

8 Pagus is still found occasionally in the more general geographical
sense, appearing to include two or more comitatus within it; but a
general examination of the capitularies and charters proves that,
generally speaking, the pagus and comitatus are identical. 805. 124,
11 : " Et de ipso pago, non de altero, testes eligantur, nisi forte longius
extra comitatem causa sit inquirenda." Cf. 818-19. 283. 10 :
" Testes vero . . . non aliunde quaerentur nisi de ipso coinitatu in quo
res unde causa agitur, positae sunt."

9 832. II. 64, 6; 823. 306, 20; 829. II 19, 7, etc.

10 801-13. 171, 11.

II 803. 114, 11; 805. 124, 11; 818. 283, 10.

22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the county, and those who own land in it.1 The count
leads the men of the county to war, and sees to the
repairing of bridges throughout the county.2 The division
of the country into counties is exhaustive ; a man must be
in one county or another;3 and as a rule there is one
count to each county, though there are signs that two or
more counties may be held by the same count.4

The count is the king's representative in the county.
He vindicates the rights of the fisc in the case of lands
which should fall to it ; 5 he looks to the keeping of royal
benefices by their holders,6 and generally defends royal
interests. He exacts the censum, market tolls, and other
dues on behalf of the king.7 His duties are, in fact, well
outlined in the general immunity formula — " freda
exigendum, mansiones aut paratas faciendum, homines
distrigendum, redibutiones requirendum." He enforces
the acceptance of good coin, and the rejection of bad coin ;8
in the later capitularies he is found presiding over a mint
himself.9 He promulgates the law in his minister 'ium,10
and keeps the record of all who have taken the oath of
fealty.11

He is generally responsible for the order and good
government of the county.12 Bridge and road mending,13

1 Sohm's denial of the existence of a county court has been refuted
by M. Beauchet, who follows Waitz in quoting a charter of 825 : " factus
est publicus conventus P. comitis et totius comitatus eius," and in
showing the character of the placitum of 803. 112. (Beauchet, p. 131 ;
Waitz, IV. p. 526 ff.)

2 829. II. 16, 11. 3 803-13. 157, 4.

4 808. 137, 4; cf. 780 ? 52. 6 Miihlbacher. D.K., pp. 272, 274.

6 818.287,3; 829.11. 14,1.

7 Note the case in Mtihlbacher, D. K., p. 17, where the count has
exacted toll from a privileged person.

8 823. 306, 20. 9 864. II. 315, 14; 820. 299, 1.

10 803. 112; 805. 141; 823-5, 307, 26.

11 792. or 786. 67, 4.

12 809. 152, 7.

13 787. 197, 7; 829. II. 16, 11. The count can exact work for these
purposes from all men, as the duty, with that of watch and ward, forms
part of the Trinoda Necessitas.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 23

and entertainment of the missi dominici 1 fall within his
sphere of duty, and he controls the holding of markets.2
He exercises a police supervision, being bound to report
conspiracies,3 and is expected to know the antecedents of
every newcomer in his district.4 He is also bound to
warn his neighbours when he banishes thieves.5 He
must have a prison in the county.6

As the lieutenant of the crown, the count enforces the
duty of military service, the third article of the Trinoda
Necessitas. His duties in this field will be treated at
greater length below. He organizes the groups of men
according to the land they hold, or their other wealth ; 7
he sees that all are well equipped according to the royal
commands ; he leads them to war.8 He is also bound to
keep all men to their duty of military service, vassals of
great men as well as pagenses. Though there are special
haribannatores appointed, the count evidently often
exacts the fine for neglect of the host himself. His
minute knowledge of the district qualifies him to prevent
the shirking of this duty, directly or indirectly, on the
part of any of his pagenses.

It is on his judicial duties, however, that most stress is
laid. Waitz points out what a weight of responsibility
in this matter appears to have rested on the consciences
of the Carolingian rulers. Their anxiety for the right
administration of justice is evident throughout the

1 802. 96, 28. Form. Sal. Bign. 16 and Form Imp. 7 give letters
of tracloria addressed to a count.

2 823. 304, 9. 3 829. II. 16, 10.

* The duty of the missus, 801-13. 157, 4; 806. 131, 5; of the count,
864. II. 323, 31, which purports to repeat a capitulary of 807.

6 809. 148, 4. 6 801-813. 171, 11. 7 825. 325, 3.

8 Note also Einhard's Ep. 41. The emperor issues commands to a
count to assemble together all the counts of the neighbourhood to
consider what measures shall be taken if war breaks out again in Bavaria.
Cf. 811-813. 177, 12.

24 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

capitularies. The count is repeatedly adjured to do
justice,1 and almost as frequently forbidden to take
bribes.2 The holding of placita is a considerable part of
his duty.

There are two kinds of placita. A capitulary of Charles
rendered attendance compulsory on all men at three
placita only in the year,3 and this command was renewed
under Lewis.4 These were the general assemblies of the
pagus, at which all men must attend. But for judicial
purposes placita had to be held at the interval of forty
days 5 which the procedure of the national laws required.
The interval was no doubt not always strictly observed ;
but the minor a placita were held throughout the year.
At these none were obliged to be present but the scabini,
the litigants, and the witnesses to any cases that might
be brought before them ; 6 though the count's vassals
might be required to attend.7 These minora placita might
be held wherever the count pleased in the county; but
the larger placita must be held where it was customary
from old time.8 The placita were to be held under a
roof, for commands to repair the place are frequently
given,9 but not in a church or a church porch.10 They

1 781. 190, 3 ; 802. 104, 48 ; 802. 94, 14 ; 801. 209, 4 ; 789? 185, 1, etc.
1 813. 174, 10; 819. 291, 21; 802. 103, 38, etc.
3 810/10. 210, 14. At an earlier period these were held twice a year.
769. 46, 12.

* 8237320, 2; 819.290, 14.

6 819. 292, 1. The interval is variable in the Laws. Note. Lex Rib.
30, 33, 72. Lex Sal. 40, 47, 50, 56.

6 " Neque cogantur ad placita venire praeter ter in anno, sicut in
capitulare continetur, excepto scabinis et causatoribus et testibus
necessariis." 823. 320, 2.

7 809. 148, 5.

8 818. 284, 14. " Ubi antiquitus consuetude fuit de libertate sacra-
mentum adhramire . . . ibi mall um habeatur . . . minora vero placita
comes sive intra suam potestatem vel ubi impetrare potuerit habeat."
Here mallum appears to be used of the greater placitum in distinction
to the lesser. Cf. 821. 301, 5.

• 809. 151,25; 809. 149, 13.

10 787 ? 196, 4; 813. 174, 21 ; 829. II. 46, 54.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 25

were not to be held on Sundays, or on certain saints'
days ; 1 nor in the months when the missi held their
placita.2 This last regulation probably applies only to
the larger meetings. None might bring arms to the
placita,3 which are thus to be distinguished from the
military assemblies of the county.

The count's justice is expected to be sufficient for the
county ordinarily. Appeal lies from his court to that of
the missus 4 and to the royal palace ; 5 but appeals are dis-
couraged.6 Cases between two counts or a count and a
bishop go before the king,7 but royal vassals are judged
before the count.8 Criminal cases and those dealing with
land or status 9 come before him. He can condemn
to death and banish ; 10 he exacts the fredum and the
faidam,11 the king's ban, and his own ban, which varies
according to his law.12 The count controls the giving of
evidence to some extent. He has the royal privilege of
holding an inquest,13 and there are traces of this in the

1 789. 61, 81; 813. 174, 15, etc.

2 811/13. 177, 8.

3 803/13. 156, 1.

* M. Beauchet and M. Glasson hold this opinion, Waitz and Sohm
the contrary. See 810. 155, 3; 802. 92, 1.

5 819. 289, 1 ; 797. 71, 4. The king has immediate jurisdiction
over those in his mund.

6 755. 32, 7 ; 781. 190, 2. " Ut unusquisque clamator tertiam vicem
ad comitem suum se proclamet ... et si ... antea ad palacium se
proclamaverit legem suum componat." Contrast, however, the free
access of the Saxon capitulary. 775/90. 70, 26; 829. II. 16, 14.

7 811/13. 176, 2.

8 781 ? 191, 13. See below, Chapter IV.

9 810. 153, 3, etc. Form. I. Sen. 20; II. Sen. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

10 820. 296, 4, 5 ; 822. 318, 4. The account of the majores causae
for which the count has competence probably applies only in the
Spanish Mark.

11 818, 282, 9; 818. 284, 13. Form. Sal. Bign. 8, 9; Sal. Lind. 19.
815. 262, 2. The count can issue a land charter to replace a lost original.
Form. I. Sen. 38.

12 790. 70, 31 ; 802. 104, 57 ; 803. 113, 2; paid for resisting a count
who pursues a thief into an immunity.

13 820. 295, 1; 822. 318, 3; 829. II. 8.

26 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

Diplomata. He administers the oath to witnesses, and
is expected to reject unworthy ones.1

The count has rights of jurisdiction even in the case of
the immunities which lie within his county. The grant
of an immunity always expressly forbids the count or his
iuniores to enter the immunity to hold pleas or do justice
or exact freda ; but the count has a right and is com-
manded to enter the immunity in pursuit of thieves who
have committed theft outside ; whilst cases arising be-
tween an inhabitant of an immunity and a pagensis from
without come before the count.2 There are instances
also in the Diplomata of an advocate of an immunity
seeking justice — usually on a question of land ownership
— before the count in the pagus.3

(d) The Count's Subordinates.

The count has thus full judicial powers in the county ; 4
but he is not the only judge in the county. Reference
has been made before to his iuniores ; the vicarii,
centenarii, missi and other lesser officials. Whatever
their historical origins may have been, their position
of dependence on the count is clearly marked in the
Carolingian period. They are described as " the count's." 5
There is a formula of doubtful date, certainly anterior to
the reign of Lewis the Pious, which contains the charge
of the count to his vicarius, and speaks of the " office
which we have committed to you."6

1 801. 210, 12; 781/6. 193, 8; 811/13. 176, 3; 822. 317, 6.

2 See below, Chapter V. 3 Miihlbacher, D. K., p. 189 (781).

4 The count has justice not only over those who live in the pagus,
but also over those who have lands, proprietary or beneficiary, within
it. A man must seek justice concerning his paternal heritage or his
liberty in his own pagus. 816. 268, 2; 818/9. 283, 10.

5 808. 138, 6; " comitis ministeriales." 829. II. 17, 15; 801/14.
144, 4. Form. Sal. Merk. 51. 822/3. 319. 12; 822/4. 302, 5; 826. 310.
There are signs that the powers of the centenarius are being cut down.
His judicial limitations are probably new. 806/10. 210, 14.

6 Form. Sal. Merk. 51 . Indiculum de comite ad vicarium. ' ' Dilecto
fidele nostro ego ille comis. Cognuscas, quia mandamus tibi de tuo

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 27

The positions of the vicarius and the centenarius have
been much discussed, but an examination of the passages
in the capitularies where they are mentioned makes it
almost certain that the two were identical in the Carolingian
period.1

M. Glasson 2 is the latest writer of the contrary opinion,
but his arguments are not convincing. Waitz identifies
the vicarius with the vicecomes* a name that is hardly
met with before the death of Lewis the Pious. It is
probable that the use of the names varied locally.

The vicarius or centenarius is at the head of the sub-
division of the county known as the vicaria or centena.
He holds placita 4 and has judicial power. M. Viollet
suggests that he may also have military powers, for the
military force appears to assemble by centenae, and
the centenarius may countenance a man's neglect of
the host.5

ministerio, quod tibi commendavimus bonum certamen exinde habeas.
. . . Domnus rex ille nobis commendavit, ut iustitias vel drictum in
nostro ministerio facere debeamus. Propterea has litteras ad te dirigi-
mus, ut in nostro comitatu vel in tuo ministerio . . . iustitias . . .
sic inquiras et facias, quasi ego ipse, . . . et nullum honorem nee
nulla blandia propter hoc accipere non facias .... Taliter exinde
certamen age, qualiter gratia nostra vellis habere." Sohm explains
quasi ego ipse to mean " as impartially as myself," Waitz, " with
equal powers to mine." Note, however, that the miniftterium of the
vicarius is distinguished from the comitatus, and is probably a smaller
district.

1 Both are described as " comitis." 826. 310; 808. 137, 3. Both
are removable by the missi dominici. 805. 124, 12. All men are
exhorted to appoint good centenarii, 809. 149, 11, and to remove
bad vicarii. 801/14. 144, 3. Both are to know the law. 801/14. 144,
4; 802/13. 147, 3. The judicial powers of both have the same limits.
810. 154, 15; 811/13. 176, 4; 801/10. 210, 14; 810. 153, 3. There is,
in fact, hardly a statement about one that is not found in connection
with the other also.

2 Glasson, II. p. 476-9. He admits that the vicaria = the centena,
and gives no proof of the difference of function between the two officials.
His arguments are based (1) on the existence of the two names ; (2) on
the evidence of the Merovingian period.

3 Waitz, III. p. 398. * 819. 290, 14; 1. 214, 4; 829. II. 19, 5.
5 808. 138, 7. See below, Chapter VI.

28 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

His judicial powers are limited; cases concerning
land, life or liberty cannot be completed before him.1
There is evidence, however, that this theoretical distinc-
tion was not invariably preserved, and that questions of
land and liberty were terminated by the vicarius,2 whilst
the capitularies command him to have a gallows.3 In
several of the formulae the vicarius is found sitting with
the count or apparently in his stead ; 4 in others he executes
the count's judgment.5 Probably these, with the Indi-
culum quoted above, refer rather to an earlier period, when
the vicarius acted as the count's deputy, somewhat like
the vicecomes of the later period.0

Beyond the difference of competence, it is difficult
clearly to trace the relations of the placita of the count
and the centenarius. According to Sohm's theory there
was no court of the pagus at all, but the court of the
centena was competent for the whole county. These
placita majora — " echte Dinge " — were held yearly in
each centena of each county by the count, and the lesser
placita were as a rule held by the centenarius. This
theory appears to have been accepted by the majority
of historians. Waitz 7 believes that there was a court of
the comitatus, but does not clearly indicate the relations
of this court to that of the centenarius. M. Beauchet8
has proved the existence of a court for the whole county
district from the court of the centena, but has not cleared

1 See passages quoted above. Also 814/40. 315, 3; Cf. 855. II.
89, 2. A case is terminated at the third of three placita. " Inter
placitum vero et placitum sint XV dies, tertium autem quando comes
(illicit nin habuerit." The preliminary steps might be taken before
the centenarius; the final judgment can only be given before the
count.

2 Form. Sal. Merk. 30. 3 801/13. 171, 11.

« Form. Sal. Bign. 7. 5 Form. Sal. Merk. 29; II. Sen. 1, 3, 6.

6 It is quite possible that the count would appoint the centenarius
to this position, and that the identity of the two names was thus brought
about.

' Waitz, IV. p. 369 ff. 8 Beauchet, p. 131 ff.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 29

up all the difficulties of the question. One of his most
forcible arguments against Sohm's theory is based on the
well-established custom of holding one of three annual
placita majora in the week after the Easter octave.1
These placita must last three days, and neighbouring
counts are required not to hold them on the same day,2
so that those who own land in two counties may be able
to attend the placita in both. It is obvious that all
these conditions could not possibly be fulfilled if the count
held his placitum ma jus in each of the four or more
centenae of his county.

In one passage the placita of the centenarius are
apparently identified with the minora placita of the pagus.3
It is possible perhaps to accept a modified form of Sohm's
theory, and to hold that the lesser placita, though held in
all the centenae in turn (or out of turn)4 are competent
for the whole pagus ; that the centenarius usually presides
at them, so that they are called his placita, but that the
count can, and sometimes does, preside at them.5 The
greater placita must be held, as we have seen, at a fixed
place ; and three only need be held yearly in the pagus.
This suggestion does not meet all the difficulties of the
case,6 but it must be remembered that the date of Charles's

1 8o3. II. 269, 8. Beauchet, p. 139.

2 864. II. 324, 32.

3 " Constitutio genitoris nostri penitus observanda est, ut . . . in
anno tria solummodo generalia placita observent .... Ad caetera,
vero, quae centenarii tenent, non alius venire jubeantur nisi qui aut
litigat aut iudicat aut testificatur." 819. 290, 14. Re-enacted, 819.
II. 19, 5.

4 One of the abuses of power on the count's part is the holding of
placita in the same place time after time.

5 821. 301, 5; 816. 270, 3; 818. 284, 14.

6 Another possible solution is the existence of two kinds of court for
the centena as for the pagus. Thus the generalem placitum of I. 214, 4
could refer to the greater placitum of the centena; whilst in 818. 290, 4
quae centenarii tenent might refer to the first sentence as well as the
second, the comma after vero being omitted. The count and the centen -
arius alike are exhorted not to hold placita too often. 816. 270, 3;
829. II. 19, 5.

30 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

organization of the scabini and regulation of the number
of greater placita is not known, whilst the passage 1 that
in some ways presents most difficulties is undated.

Besides the vicarius and the centenarius the count has
other subordinates. As has been pointed out, he is of
necessity absent from his county when he leads out the
military forces, and also if he goes to the palace on any
errand. A capitulary of 808 authorizes the count to leave
two men behind when he goes to the host, " propter
ministerium eius custodiendum." 2 In these M. Beauchet 3
sees the origin of the vicecomes, who is only mentioned
once by that name in the capitularies 4 before the death
of Lewis, and then in a doubtful passage. There is,
however, frequent mention of the count's missus,5
appointed by him for various purposes, and it seems
possible that he delegated his power to some person or
persons in his absence. Waitz, as we have seen, could
identify this delegate with the vicarius, M. Glasson 6 and
M. Beauchet with the vicecomes.

Professor Sickel 7 points out that the limitation by
Charles of the judicial powers of the centenarius threw
more work on the shoulders of the count, whilst at the
same time the growing custom of holding more than
one county also involved the need of more assistance.
Thus the custom of appointing a substitute of equal
powers with the count's arose. The tendency was most
marked in the west and south, and operated rapidly
between the reigns of Charles the Great and Charles the
Bald. The distinction of the vicecomes from the centen-

1 I. 214, 4. " Centenarii generalem placitum frequentius non
habent propter pauperis ; . . . ut hi pauperes qui nullam causam ibidem
non habeant non cogantur in placitum venire nisi bis aut ter in anno."

2 808. 137, 4. a Beauchet, p. 192. * 789/814 ? 185, 3.

6 816. 262, 5; 829. II. 9; 781/6. 193, 10; 810. 153, 2; Cf. 779.
51, 19.
• Glasson II. p. 468 ff. 7 Die Vicecomitat (1907), pp. 3, 6.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 31

arius is that his power may extend throughout the county,
whilst that of the centenarius is confined to the centena.
The centenarius, again, is a public official, whilst the vice-
comes, as Professor Sickel is careful to show, is appointed
by the count and is hardly recognized by the capitularies at
all.1 It is a private matter that concerns the count him-
self ; it is his right, not his duty, to appoint an assistant ;
but, once appointed, the vicecomes has the same powers
as the count in the district, whether a whole county or
a part of it, over which he is set. It is quite possible
that the count occasionally made a centenarius his vice-
gerent in his absence.2 From being a temporary appoint-
ment the office probably came to be held for life, and at a
later date it becomes hereditary.

(e) Popular Control.

So far the administration has been represented as
dependent in theory solely on the king ; if not directly,
at least through the count. The principle of popular
control, however, is still recognized. The witness of
the pagenses is mentioned in the Diplomata which
record discussions of land ownership,3 and the presence
of the rachiniburgi, boni homines, scabini is also men-
tioned.4 These attend the minora placita 5 in place
of the larger public, who now find attendance a burden
and not a privilege. The name scabini is not found in
the capitularies till 803,6 but it occurs much earlier hi the

1 844. II. 259, 5. The Spaniards of the mark may choose for their
lord count, vicecomes or vicarius. 884. II. 374, 9. The count tells
his vicecomes and his centenarii and vicarii to support the Church.
864. II. 315, 14. The vicecomes assists the count at the mint.

2 Professor Sickel quotes an instance for 935.

3 Miihlbacher, D. K., p. 243 (797). " Inventum est . . . per O.
episcopum, et alios veraces homines inter patriam habitantes.u
(Patria — pagus.)

4 Ibid., p. 273, 201.

5 809. 148, 5 ; 801/10. 210, 14. They are not needed at the " echte
Dinge." Waitz, IV. p. 398.

6 803. 112; 803, 115, 3.

32 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

Diplomata.1 Probably the name was used popularly as
an alternative for rachiniburgi about this period,2 but
by the time of Lewis the name scabini was established.
Their business at the placita is to declare the law ; 3 the
count's sentence results from that. Thus the judgment
is called theirs — " postquam scabini eum diiudicaverunt,
non est licentia comitis vel vicarii ei vitam concedere." 4
The same fact stands out clearly in the Diplomata. The
scabini are essential to the count's tribunal; without
them no judgment can be given.5 They are probably
attached to the county, not to the centena, for they are
called the count's scabini and are not mentioned in con-
nection with the centenarius.6 They are either appointed
by the missi dominici or, like the vicarii and centenarii,
" cum comite et populo " : that is, probably, nominated
by the count and approved by the pagus at the
placitum.7

Thus the popular control 8 on the administration of
justice might appear to be effective. It is to be noted,
however, that it is the count who is held responsible for
just judging ; 9 that he, no less than are the scabini, is

1 Miihlbacher, D. K., p. 189 (781), 201 (782), 243 (797).

2 Note Form. And. 50; Sal. Bign. 7, 27; Sal. Merk. 16, 18, 27, 28;
Sal. Lind. 19, 21.

3 809. 148, 1. "In testimonio non suscipiatur nee inter scabinos
legem iudicandum locum non teneat." Cf. Form. Sal. Land. 21.

« 801/13, 172, 13.

6 821. 301, 5; Cf. 809. 150, 13 ; 823. 320, 2, etc.

« 789/814. 185, 1 ; 826. 310; 803. 112. Note also Form. Sal. Land.
19. " Scabini, pagenses scilicet loci illius." Muhlbacher, D. K., p. 201
" Scabinis Moslinses."

7 809. 151, 22. Scabini is omitted in some MSS. 803. 115, 3. " Ut
missi nostri . . . scabinios elegant.11 Apparently they hold office for
life and are removable for bad conduct. 829. II. 15, 4.

8 The judgment of the convicini in Saxony (797. 71, 4) and in the
Spanish Mark (815. 262, 2; 844. II. 259, 3) appears to belong to a
state of things that has not yet been brought into conformity with the
general governmental system.

• The references to bribery and to just judgment given above could
hardly apply to a powerless president.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 33

expected to know the law.1 His powerful position in
the county, moreover, makes it probable that he was
able in many instances to impose his will on the people
in matters of election, and to modify the judgment of
the scabini hi matters of justice.

Theodulf's description of a tribunal2 minimizes the
power of the people. In drawing any inference from it,
however, it must be remembered that its date is prior to
the reorganization of the missi and of the judicial system,
which took place about 802 ; and that the description
applies to the tribunal of the missi dominici, not to the
count's. The record of the placitum at Istria,3 where
the popular voice is loudly heard, may be set in the
opposite scale.

The scabini appear not only in the count's placita, but
also in those held by the missi dominici.4 If the pagus
is weak in opposing the count, it has a chance of appeal
to the king directly, or of a complaint at the assembly
held by the missi. In the system of Charles the Great
the missi formed an essential link between the central
and local government. The institution was designed to
correct the manifest evils of the growing independence
of the count. But as the count's powers were abused,
so were those of the missus. Again, the systematic visi-
tation of the various regions into which the country was
divided for the purpose was likely to be soon discontinued
in times of civil disorder.5 Neither the organization itself
nor the individuals who formed a part of it were fitted to
fulfil their functions effectively even throughout the reign

1 802. 147, 3; 801. 144, 4.

2 Paraenesis ad judices (798), lines 425 ff. M. G. H. Poetarum
Latinorum Medii Aevi, Tom. I. Pars I. p. 504.

8 Waitz, III. p. 488 ff. * 820. 295, 2 ; 826. 310.

6 The breakdown of the system of Missi Dominici is well described
by J. W. Thompson, University of Chicago Decennial Publications,
vol. iv., 1903.
D

34 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

of Lewis the Pious. Thus the chief instrument of royal
control fell into disuse, and feudal tendencies were given
free space to develop along the lines which, as we have
seen, are clearly traceable under Charles and Lewis.

2. The Comitatus, 840-887.

So far the system has been described as it operated.
Theoretically the system seems to have been little altered
in the later period; practically it was being modified
beyond recovery. One sign of the change is the silence
of the capitularies with regard to the lesser officials.
There are not half a dozen references to the vicarius and
centenarius 1 in all the capitularies for all the kingdoms
hi the period 840-887. The scabini are barely mentioned.
The central government is not now concerned, to the same
degree as at an earlier date, that justice be strictly
enforced and that good officials be appointed.

As regards the count himself, we see him exercising
the same functions as before, but his position is altering.
The tendencies of the earlier period are becoming pro-
nounced. The capitulary of Quierzy,2 as has been shown
repeatedly, did not make him hereditary ; but it is none
the less true that it implies that the descent of the county
from father to son is the usual practice. Fustel de Cou-
langes 3 quotes instances which show that while a count-
ship might be granted to the son of a count, it was as a
rule not the one that his father had held. M. Poupardin 4

1 Only one of these has any importance. In 853. II. 274 is given a
copy of an oath to be taken by a centenarius. " Ego ille adsalituram
quod scach (open robbery), vocant vel tesceiam (secret theft) non faciam
nee consentiam, et si sapuero, non celabo . . . et de Francis hominibus
in isto comitatu et in meo ministerio commanentibus nullum recelabo,
quantum recordari potuero, ut per brevem vobis missis dominicis non
manifestem." This formula may be compared with the oath taken by
the twelve senior thegns of III. Atr. 3.

2 877. II. 358, 9.

3 Transformations de la royaute, p. 426.

4 Lea grandes families comtales a 1'epoque Carolingienne, R, H,
vol. 72, pp. 72-95.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 35

also shows that there were certain great families who
almost monopolized the office of count before the dynastic
tie finally gave way to the local tie.

Under Charles and Lewis the Pious the vassalization
of the count had been proceeding. The tendencies of
the earlier years are clearly developing in the period 840-
887, though still slowly. The count himself is frequently
a royal vassal, holding a benefice from the king. His
underlings are becoming his vassals, probably holding
lands from him ; and they in their turn have vassals
under them.1 His justice is approximating to that of
other lords — bishops, abbots and royal vassals.2 He, like
the king's other lieges, is exhorted to live of his own and
not to oppress his neighbours.3 He, like other great men,
may have a private chaplain.4 His benefices extend into
other counties beside his own.5 Although his theoretical
position is unchanged and he still exacts the oath of fealty
to the king G and maintains order generally, practically
his position is much modified.

The change is due as much to the environment as to
alterations in the office itself. The disorder of the times
is reflected in the capitularies. The count is commanded
to support the king in case of a conspiracy 7 — not the
collectae or gildoniae of slaves which threatened the peace
of Charles the Great's rule, but unions of disaffected mag-
nates. He may have to face local disorder — werra — and
cope with it on his own responsibility, only sending to
the king when it grows beyond his power.8 He is ordered
to destroy castles erected without royal permission.9
On the other hand, the development of legitimate spheres

1 844. II. 259, 5.

2 869. II. 337, 2. All of these alike are enjoined to do such justice
to their vassals as was owed them from of old.

8 853. II. 76, 5. 4 845/50. II. 81, 3. 5 864. II. 319, 22.
6 873. II. 345, 5. 7 865. II. 331, 13. • 877. II. 360, 19.

9 864. II. 328, 1.

36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

of influence that rival his own is distinctly traceable.
The earlier capitularies had emphasized the right of the
count to enter the immunities in pursuit of runaway
criminals ; these rather lay stress on the privileges of the
immunity and the count's duty of observing it.1 Again,
the rights of the vassi dominici are developing at the
expense of the count's judicial powers. They can claim
trial before the king, and can refuse to acknowledge the
count's jurisdiction.2

It is possible that the rapidity of this change in the
national organization has been exaggerated. If the
capitularies appear to indicate a dissolvent frame of
government, a growth of local independence, and a
development of rival powers alongside that of the officials,
there are also apparently indications that the ordinary
round of administration proceeded as in the earlier period.
The regulations as to the mints 3 indicate a close con-
nection between the palace and the county. The rules
as to the holding of placita 4 are numerous and more
definite, in some respects, than the earlier ones. Yet
even these provoke the suspicion that the old traditional
system was breaking down and needed reinforcement.
The frequent exactions of the general oath of fealty 5
may bear the same interpretation. The failure of the
system of the missi dominici stands evident in one passage
where these officials are ordered to refer to the count
whatever they have had no time to accomplish during

1 The bishop is to report the count's breach of an immunity, 864.
II. 312, 1.

2 See below, Chapter IV.

3 864. II. 315, 14; 864. II. 317, 17; 864. II. 320, 23.

* Several of the passages quoted above belong to this period. 863.
II. 89, 2 ; sets the interval of a fortnight for the ordinary placita. See
also 853. II. 269, 8 ; 845. II. 420, 79 ; 864. II. 324, 32 ; 857. II. 286, 2 ;
857. II. 294.

5 853. II. 272, 4; 854. II. 278, 13; 865. II. 330, 2; 873. II. 344, 4;
873. II. 342.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 37

their rounds, and report to the king, who will see that the
counts fulfil their duty.1 The futility of this regulation
is seen when it is remembered that the chief function of
the missi was to be a check on the counts, and that they
were supposed to be the chief if not the only vehicle of
royal control.

Speaking broadly, then, it may be said that the chief
significance of the later period is to be found outside
the county organization. The changes coming over the
position of the count and his subordinates are so largely
attributable to seignorial developments both within and
without, that a study of these by themselves is necessa^.
The count, although theoretically supreme in judicial,
administrative and military powers, is in reality restricted
in all these fields by rivals, many of whom can show as
good royal warrant for their rights and powers as he can.
By the side of the count are the royal vassal and the
immunist ; the holders of royal benefices and of royal
privileges have an authority almost equal to that of the
holder of royal office.

3. The Shire to 871.

The extreme scantiness of the sources for early English
institutional history makes it difficult not to overestimate
the importance both of allusions and of omissions in the
documents that remain. The most that can be done
is to state the evidence and attempt to construct a work-
ing hypothesis. Such an attempt will be made in the
case of the kingdoms of Kent, Mercia and Wessex in the
seventh and eighth centuries, as it is to the codes of
^Ethelberht, Offa and Ine that Alfred's introduction
refers.

(a) Kent.

In the Kentish laws the predominance of the king
is traceable throughout. His offices and his privileges
1 865. II. 331, 12.

38 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

are constantly mentioned,1 and the laws are promul-
gated by his sole authority 2 in the case of ^Ethelberht
and Hlothhsere ; and when in Wihtraed's laws 3 refer-
ence is made to the co-operation of others, it is no
official nobility, such as Ine's ealdormen, which gives
counsel and consent, but merely eadigan.

The king's wic gerefa, who witnesses the sale of cattle,4
and may be required to act as oath helper in cases
of vouching to warranty in the king's hall,5 appears
to have no independent jurisdiction. The gerefa of
Wihtraed's laws seems to be part steward, part judge,
exercising a purely domestic jurisdiction.6

In the laws of Hlothhaere and Eadric, mention is made
of deman who are present at a methd or thing, and pre-
scribe right to men.7 It is quite possible that these are
the dooms-men who declare the law, and thus have
much in common with the Merovingian rachiniburgi*

Whilst the charters attributed to ^Ethelberht are
" impudent forgeries," 9 some information as to official
ranks may be obtained from the charters of Eadberht
(738-765). These are witnessed by comites and praefecti
and by one princeps. Comes may be taken as a translation
of gesith, and thus corresponds with the mention of the
gesithcund man hi Wihtraed's laws. Praefectus, which is
often translated gerefa, may well bear that meaning here.10

1 Abt. 5, 7, 8. HI. 7, 16.

1 " These are the dooms that King ^Ethelberht established." "These
are the dooms that Hlothhsere and Eadric, kings of Kent, established."

3 Wi. prol. Wi. 5, however, refers to the gemot at which apparently
the laws were framed. The signatures of the few genuine charters of
Wihtrsed afford no help in determining the composition of such a
gemot.

« HI. 16. 5 HI. 7. • Wi. 22. 7 HI. 8.

8 Dema is found at a later period with the meaning of judge or
president of a tribunal. See III. Eg. 3 ; Judex ; Alfred's Bede.

» Kemble, II. p. 132.

10 B. 194 (765) is signed by an Ecgbald who is " comes atque
praefectua."

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 39

In the Kentish laws, then, there is no mention of any
territorial division, large or small,1 to guide us in estimat-
ing the importance of the assemblies at which justice
is done and law declared.2

The king's gerefa who witnesses sales may preside at
such assemblies, though the fact is nowhere stated.
There is no sign of any nobility but one based on birth.

(6) Mercia.

For Mercia the evidence is even slighter than it is
for Kent, as Offa's laws are not extant in an inde-
pendent form. His charters, however, are numerous,
and from these a hierarchy may be deduced. The
charters are signed by reguli, subreguli, duces, praefecti,
comites, ministri and one patricius. The regulus or
subregulus who signs, is, as a rule, the lord of the Hwiccii ;
he grants charters himself, which are confirmed by Offa.
A comparison of the names of the witnesses makes it
clear that dux and princeps are equivalent titles. Of
thirty-two signatories who bear one or the other title,
twelve are called by either indifferently. Of the seven
praefecti, three are also called principes. The patricius
is also called dux and princeps. Only four ministri are
mentioned. If minister is to be translated thegn, and
comes gesith, there can be little doubt that the dux
or princeps is the ealdorman. Mr. Chadwick 3 brings
evidence to prove this. He is inclined to identify the
praefectus, whose position is more doubtful, with the
ealdorman also.4

No territorial description is annexed except in the case

1 The king's tun and the wic are the only units mentioned.

2 We may note, however, that the methel has its frith (Abt. 1), in
this resembling the later folkmoot.

3 Chadwick, pp. 329 ff . The Chronicle for 825 mentions five ealdormen
of Mercia.

4 The miles of Offa's earlier charters probably is the comes or
minister.

40 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

of the dux Suthsaxonum, Oswald.1 A diploma of 825
refers to the swangerefan, who have care of the woodlands,
but no general administrative organization can be inferred
from this.2

Thus, whilst the existence of a body of ealdormen
under Offa is well attested, there is no evidence of any
official duties or any special districts assigned to them.
The position, however, of the ruler of the Hwiccii suggests
an explanation for their origin.

In the laws of Ine there are distinct traces of an
official organization. The ealdormen who help to frame
the laws 3 hold shires 4 or offices, which they may
forfeit at the king's will for neglect of duty. Their
official position is not less evident than their social
distinction.5 Again, the king's gerefa has duties con-
nected with police organization ; he receives the fine paid
by those who have allowed a captured thief to escape.6
This may still, however, be no more than the duty of
a steward caring for his master's fiscal interests.

No particular district is mentioned in connection with
the king's gerefa, but the shire to which the ealdorman
appears to be attached 7 has evidently a territorial
significance.8 It appears to be a definite district over
which the king has set the ealdorman. Whether the
name attaches to his district alone is not certain ; scirman
in Ine 8 9 may mean " ealdorman," or merely " official,"
with scir used in the original sense of " office." The
shireman is, however, a judge before whom right is
claimed; there is an official judicial system.

1 B. 208. 2 B. 386. 8 Ine, prol.

« Ine, 36. 6 Ine, 6, 2, 3. • Ine, 73.

7 Ine, 36, 1. " If he be an ealdorman let him lose his shire."

8 Ine, 39. " If any man leave his lord without permission, or steal
himself away into another shire."

9 " If any man claim his right before a scirman or any other judge ll
(dema).

Of the existence of the territorial shire the earliest
evidence is probably that of the Chronicle, which mentions
the district of Hampshire in 755, and the men of Wilt-
shire in 800. Here, again, the connection of the ealdor-
man with the shire is to be noted.1 From 845 onwards
there is ample evidence for the shire system in the
Chronicle.2

The king's gerefa also is mentioned in the Chronicle.
When the ships of the Northmen appeared in 787 the
king's gerefa attempted to make them come to the
king's tun at Dorchester, taking them for merchants.
From this, and from other indications, Mr. Chadwick
would deduce the organization of local government by
king's tuns, each having a jurisdiction extending some
distance around it.3 There is, at least, no reason to
associate the gerefa with the ealdorman's shire.

In a charter of 824 4 Egbert books land to his gerefa —
" praefecto meo " — and the deed is witnessed by five
other praefecti. This appears to establish the translation
praefectus for gerefa for Wessex at this period. Of the
various signatories of Egbert's charters eighteen are
duces, four of these being praefecti first ; ten are praefecti ;
eighteen are ministri. Under ^Ethelwulf nineteen duces
sign, only a few of whom bear the same names as
Egbert's duces ; and besides nineteen ministri, there are
ten milites.

The early West Saxon administration thus appears
to include a definite territorial organization, with which
special officials are connected. The duties of the gerefa
are, perhaps, more clearly indicated than in the other
kingdoms ; but it is in the shire system that the essential
difference of Wessex from the other kingdoms appears

1 " The ealdorman, Weohstan, met him with the Wiltshire men."

2 See under years 845, 851, 860, etc.

3 Chadwick, pp. 215 ff. « B. 377.

42 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

to lie. If its origin is to be traced in the formation of
separate territories to endow the members of the royal
family,1 whilst the ealdormen of Mercia represent the
former rulers of conquered kingdoms, this may to some
extent explain the eventual prevalence of the shire
system. The ealdormanries of East and West Kent,
however, appear to be derived from a former double
kingdom.

There is no mention of any gemot or assembly at which
the shireman or any other judge presides. The existence
of such can only be conjectured by analogy or in the
light of later developments.

4. The Shire, 871-925.

The contrast between the English and Frankish systems
of administration is immediately evident when a com-
parison is attempted. Whilst the count, as has been
said, is the backbone of the system in Francia, the
ealdorman is of no such essential importance in Wessex.
No orderly hierarchy of officials can be constructed
from the data we possess. On the other hand, the
shire forms a definite unit in relation to which the
officials may be studied. In describing the local govern-
ment of Wessex under Alfred and Edward, and in
comparing it with that of the Carolingian system, the
districts will first be discussed ; next, the officials and their
relations to each other ; and, lastly, their relation to the
central government.

(a) The District.

The shire, so briefly mentioned in Ine's laws, appears
in full working order for military purposes in the
Chronicle of the ninth and tenth centuries.2 The struggle

1 Chadwick, pp. 284 ff.

* See below, Chapter VI. In the Chronicle 755-891 all the shires
south of the Thames are mentioned; 755 Hampshire, 800 Wiltshire,
837 Dorset, 851 Devonshire, 860 Berkshire, 878 Somersetshire, 891
Cornwall.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 43

with the Northmen is carried on in a series of local
efforts, each shire in turn coming out against them
under its ealdorman. On the other hand, there is but
one reference to the shire in Alfred's laws,1 and none
in those of Edward. The laws of Ine, however, form an
integral part of Alfred's code, and the small number of
references is to some extent explained by this.

These passages, however, make several facts clear.
The division into shires, as into pagi, is comprehensive ;
every man must be in one such district. For leaving
a shire a man must have the witness of its ealdorman,
and if such leave is not obtained a fine is due in each of
the two shires in question. Thus the shire, like the pagus,
is a financial and political unit as well as a military
unit.

It is also a judicial unit. The ealdorman is found
presiding over a gemot 2 which, like the Kentish methel,
has its own peace. This is in all probability the later
shiremoot, which in some respects answers to the placitum
of the comitatus in Francia.

At the outset the analogy thus appears close. The
West Saxon shire corresponds in many ways to the
Frankish pagus. The question of origin is the most
doubtful. As parts of a working system both owe their
form to the central government, but, apart from other
evidence, the two names for the Frankish district indicate
a popular as well as a royal origin,3 whilst the word shire,
with its original meaning of office, points to imposition
of a system from above. It is in connection with the
shire that there appears to be most evidence for deliberate
innovation on the part of the crown.4 Yet, as we have

1 Af. 37; 37,1.

2 Af. 38; 38, 1.

3 This is also suggested by the frequent use of patria for pagus.

4 Cf. Mr. Chadwick's theory referred to above.

44 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

seen, traces of the system are found as early as Ine's
reign, and its development is explicable without any
theory of foreign influence.

The theory has been advanced that " the shire of the
seventh century is the hundred of the tenth." * The
author of this suggestion brings forward numerous
proofs of the existence, during the eighth and ninth
centuries, of a district smaller than the later shire;
described in the charters as regio ; and known in English,
so he believes, as the shire. It is, perhaps, of no very
great importance whether these districts bore the English
name of shire ; it is possible that its use had not yet
become specialized. No traces, however, of any resem-
blance to the later shire 2 are to be found in these few
references to the regio. When it is considered that the
regiones cannot be identified with the hundreds,3 as soon
as their limits are traceable, even in Kent, from which
Mr. Adams drew most of his examples, it will be seen
that his formula has little value. It may be noted that
it is in Kent that Mr. Chadwick finds the clearest traces
of the district smaller than the shire, that he believes
was organized round the king's tun there.4

The existence of districts for taxation purposes is
suggested by Mr. Corbett,5 and by him traced back to
a very early date and connected with the semi-mythical
Bretwealda-ship. The evidence afforded by the Tribal
Hidage, however, is too isolated and problematic to
contribute much to the understanding of the adminis-
trative system in Wessex. A reference to a lesser
district than the shire has, however, been traced in the

1 Adams, A. S. Law, p. 19.

8 The only official mentioned in connection with the regio is the
gerefa, not the ealdorman.

3 Stevenson, E. H. R. (1905), p. 350.

4 Chadwick, pp. 249 ff.

8 Trans. R. Hist. Soc. XIV. pp. 187 ff. (1900).

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 45

laws of Alfred himself. Dr. Liebermann x suggests that
the boldgetael of Alfred 37 2 is the unit which later came
to be known as the hundred. He supports his theory
by ^Elfric's gloss — getalu for centurias.3 Unsupported as
the suggestion is by any other passage in the laws, it
must stand as a conjecture only, but it is of too much
interest to be ignored.

Whatever m&y be thought of these suggestions, the
contrast between the ambiguous and hypothetical regio,
hundred hides, or boldgetael of Wessex and the clear-cut
centena or vicar ia of Francia is striking.

(6) The Officials.

From the first appearance of the shire it is associated
with the ealdorman. The ealdorman, like the count, is
dependent on the king for his position.4 His social
dignity is well marked, no less than his official character.5
He presides, as we have seen, at the folkmoot,6 where
he receives the wite due to the king,7 and he has the power

1 Gesetze der Angelsachsen, Worterbuch. Deutsche Literaturzeitung
(1905), 12, p. 736 (reviewing Chadwick).

2 "If a man from one boldgetael wish to seek a lord in another
boldgetael, let him do it with the witness of that ealdorman whom he
before followed in his shire." The new boldgetael apparently lies in
a different shire.

* Further evidence in favour of Dr. Liebermann' s theory is afforded
by the Alfredian version of Gregory's dialogues, where boldgetael appears
three times as a translation of provincia. In one instance scir is an
alternative rendering. Grein, Angel-Sachische Prosa, Vol. V. pp. 45,
185, 229. Professor Vinogradoff (Growth of the Manor, p. 250) accepts
the theory, which accords well with Bede's reckoning by households.
Professor Rietschel (Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung (1907), p. 412,
Germ. Abt.) adds the suggestion that getael has a definite numerical
significance and that bold — hide. On the other hand, Frh. v. Schwerin
(Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiflung (1908), p. 290. Germ. Abt.) considers
that the word means a group of holdings subject to one lord.

4 Ine, 36, 1.

5 The ealdorman's burgbryce is 80s. (Ine, 45) or 20s. (Af. 40), and
his fihtwite 60s. (Ine, 6, 2) or 100s. (Af. 15). In each case he is equalled
with the bishop. The penalty for breaking his borh is also equal to
the bishop's (Af. 3). Tne will of the ealdorman Alfred refers to his
double wer (B. 558).

6 Af. 38, 1. ' Af. 37, 1.

46 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

to pervert justice.1 He has the right to give the king
counsel,2 like the count, and like him has important
military duties. His position is as yet strictly official,
but tends, like the count's, to become hereditary.

The recompense that the ealdorman receives may be
compared with that of the count. There are indications
that as the count was in many cases paid with a benefice
or with comitatus pertinentia, so there were lands specially
attached to the ealdormanship.3 From the passage in
Alfred's law, which has been already quoted more than
once, it appears that the ealdorman had some pecuniary
interest hi the king's wite, since half was to be paid in
each shire.4 Not till the twelfth century is it expressly
declared that the earl has the third penny 5 of forfeiture in
the shire, but the right recurs frequently in Domesday,
and has evidently been long transferable.6 Thus it does

1 Ine, prol.

a Ine, prol. The ealdorman is here coupled with the other witan.
The signatures to Alfred's charters indicate at once the position of
the ealdorman at the national council, and the number of ealdormen
at a given time. In the reign of Alfred (Mr. Chadwick's figures are
given) twenty-three comites sign ; under Edward nineteen, five being the
same as Alfred's. It thus appears probable that there was an ealdorman
to each shire in Alfred's reign, Kent having two. There are signs of
a falling off in numbers under Edward, which Mr. Chadwick attributes
to a temporary breakdown of the shire system.

3 Kemble, II. p. 140, points out that the " ealdormonnes land " was
a permanent landmark, frequently mentioned in the charter bound-
aries. I. As. prol. may refer to this official land in exhorting the
ealdorman to pay the tithe first from his own land. Domesday refers
tomansiones de comitatu, and the Instituta Cnuti (1103-1120) to comi-
tales villos qui pertinent ad comitatum eius (In. Cn. III. 55).

« Af. 37, 1.

6 E. Cf. 27, 2. " Comes comitatus qui tertium denarium habet de
foris facturis." In. Cn. III. 55. " Tertius denarius in villis ubi mercatum
conveniunt et in castigatione latronum." Dial, de Scacc. 1. 17. " Comes
est qui tertiam portionem eorum quae de placitis proveniunt in quolibet
comitatu percipit . . . sed hii tantum . . . quibus regum munificentia
. . . decernit."

6 The third penny of the shire is the earl's in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire,
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. The third penny of various boroughs
is the earl's. The third penny of the shire occasionally (Dorset, Dd. 1. 76.
Warwickshire, Dd. 1.238), and more frequently of a hundred or hundreds

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 47

not seem an improbable supposition that from a very
early date the ealdorman, and possibly other royal
officials, had a third part of the judicial fines paid to
the king. We have noticed traces of a similar custom
in Francia. In both countries, however, the very fact
that there are so few specific notices of the right suggests
extreme antiquity of custom, and it is far more probable
that it has a common origin in the two countries than
that one borrowed from the other.

The ealdorman, again, appears to have the right of
exacting services and dues. Reference is frequently made
in the charters to pastus principum x as one of the burdens
from which the land is freed. This can only mean the
ealdorman's feorm ; the duty of giving him lodging and
sustenance, which in Francia is known as mansionaticus .
Other services are generally referred to in one charter 2
in such a manner as to suggest that the ealdorman had
power to exact them, whether for his own ends or for
the king.

The ealdorman's judicial duties are but slightly out-
lined as compared with those of the count. Beyond the
fact that he has a position of dignity hi the folkmoot and
that he can exact wite for himself and for the king, there
is scarcely any account of his judicial activity. Even
at a later date his duties are the general ones of keeping
peace and enforcing law,3 no closer definition being
given. The most detailed instance of his enforcement
of order in Alfred's laws 4 is connected rather with his
military than with his judicial powers. The man who

(Dd. I. 38b, 86b, 87b, 101, II. 294b) is annexed to a manor, often
royal, sometimes comital. For the transferable nature of the right,
note I. 280b. " Horum omnium nemo habere potuit tereiam denarium
comitis nisi eius concessu et hoc quamdiu viceret." «-

1 B. 416, 443, 450, 454, 488, etc.

2 B. 551. " JSghwelces bulges to freon ge wifc cyning, ge wi* ealdor-
man ge wifc gerefan teghwelces beodomes lytles ofcfce micles."

3 II. Atr. 6. * Af. 42, 3.

48 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

cannot overcome his home-sitting foe is to ride to the
ealdorman for help, and if the ealdorman fail him, to
the king. The help given by the ealdorman would
presumably take the form of armed assistance with some
of the forces of the shire. Under Edgar we find that it
Is the ealdorman's duty to set forth the law in the shire-
moot.1 It was also the duty of the count to know and
enforce the law, as the capitularies declare repeatedly.
The count is also exhorted to appoint good subordinates
or iuniores ; and similarly the ealdorman has a gingra,2
whom he appoints himself.3 Of the position of this
gingra we have practically no information, beyond the
fact that his dignity is equal to that of a priest, unless
he is to be identified with the gerefa*

There are more traces of judicial activity on the part
of the gerefa than on the part of the ealdorman. The
gerefa, like the ealdorman, assists at legislation,5 takes
the wedd, or pledge of loyalty from his own shire 6 — a
similar duty to that entrusted to the missi dominici in
Francia. He pursues thieves7 and has the custody of
offenders during their imprisonment in the king's tun.8
He exacts the bot,9 which may be paid only in his presence,10
and the wite on pain of paying the king's oferhyrnesse
himself.11 He is commanded to deem just dooms, to set
a fixed term for cases and to declare folkright truly,12
and he is forbidden to take bribes for the perversion of
justice.13 He has a limited manung or jurisdictional
district.14 He holds a gemot,15 whereas the ealdorman is

I III. Eg. 5. 2 Af. 38, 2 3 Judex, 8 (980-1050).
« See below, p. 61. 8 VI. As. prol. • VI. As. 10.

7 VI. As. 8. » Af. 1, 3. • II. Ew. 2.

10 I. Atr. 1, 14 (980-1013).

II V. As. 1,2; cf. II. As. 26. " I. Ew. prol. I. Ew. 2. II. Ew. 8.
» V. As. 1, 3.

14 V. As. 1, 5. VI. As. 8, 2. In VI. As. 8, 4 manung is used for the
men of the district.

15 IT. Ew. 8.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 49

only described as being present at one. He is a public
official before whom debts are declared 1 and sales take
place.2 Merchants from a distance must make known
to the king's gerefa at the folkmoot the men whom they
bring with them, as often as new ones arrive.3 The
gerefa also controls the commendation of men to their
lords.4

The gerefa holds a gemot every four weeks.5 This, as
has been frequently pointed out, is the interval at which
the hundred court is later held. In only two passages
to which reference has been made is the gerefa connected
with the shire,6 and these occur in the laws of ^Ethelstan.
There appears no obstacle to the theory that the district
over which the gerefa of this period presides is one smaller
than the shire. The word gerefa in itself implies no
special district ; it is found in connection with the port
and the tun and the wic, and only much later with the
shire. It seems quite possible that the gerefa of Alfred
and Edward administered the district that became
known as the hundred.

It might seem that the gerefa is therefore to be paralleled
with the centenarius. There is, however, one essential
difference, a difference that is characteristic of the whole
governmental system of the two countries. Whilst the
centenarius is entirely dependent on the count — for the
relic of popular election is little more than a form —
the gerefa is pre-eminently the king's gerefa. Whilst

1 Af. 22. 2 II. As. 10. » Af. 34.

4 V. As. 1, 2. In this instance the gerefa appears to be stepping
into the shoes of the ealdorman. Af. 37.

5 II. Ew. 8.

6 VI. As. 10. In VI. As. 8, 4, whilst the shire is described as the
gerefa's, his manung is apparently distinct from it, and reference is also
made to the gerefscipas of the two gerefan. The relation of the gerefa
to the shire at this date is not clear from this passage (see below). Scir
is undoubtedly used in the territorial sense, for when the forfeiture
of office is mentioned, the word folgo* is employed. (VI. As. 11.)

50 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the centenarius and vicarius are always " comitis
iuniores," we hear nowhere of the " ealdorman's gerefa."
Mr. Chadwick has brought forward good evidence for
the derivation of the office from a stewardship over the
royal estates,1 and the use of the name in various other
connections supports the theory. Whatever his origin,
however, the dependence of the gerefa on the king is
unmistakable. He is plainly placed in his office to
defend the royal interests.2 He is most frequently
referred to as " the king's gerefa.3 He is liable to lose
his office through inefficiency.4 " If any of you is
neglectful and will not obey me, and will not take that
wedd of those below him . . . then be that gerefa without
his office and without my friendship, and let him pay me
120 shillings."

It appears, also, that the jurisdiction of the gerefa is
superior to that of the centenarius, for he can do justice
in questions of land, whether it be bookland or folkland,5
whilst the centenarius, as we have seen, has no juris-
diction over cases of land, life or liberty. Such cases
were later heard in the hundred, a fact which affords
another reason for connecting the gerefa with the hundred.

There seems, therefore, no ground for identifying the
ealdorman's gingra with the gerefa of Alfred's laws. Yet
it is possible that the ealdorman, like the count, may
have come to appoint subordinates. It has been sug-

1 Chadwick, pp. 228 ff. There are several passages in the laws in
which the name still bears this meaning. E. g. IV. Eg. 13, 1. In
I. As. prol. the gerefan first mentioned are ordered to pay the tithe
from the king's lands, and would therefore appear to be royal
stewards; later in the passage the king's gerefan, coupled with his
ealdormen, are ordered to pay tithe from their own lands, and would
seem to be public officials. But the offices may well have been
doubled.

2 I. Atr. 1, 14. The gerefa of B. 591 confiscates land which is forfeit
to the king.

8 Ine. 73. Af. 1, 3. Af. 22. I. As. Prol. II. As. 23, etc.
« VI. As. II. 11. As. 26. • I. Ew. 2.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 51

gested, and seems very probable, that the gingran of
" judex " and the iuniores of the charters were a class
of subordinates of the ealdorman, of whom the scir gerefa
was one.1 The breakdown of the shire system, if it may
be so called, took the form of an aggregation of several
shires in the hands of one ealdorman. Mr. Chad wick 2
shows that not more than six " comites " are to be traced
contemporaneously as witnessing charters under ^Ethel-
stan. Thus it is possible that as the ealdormanries
develop it becomes customary for the ealdorman to
appoint a gerefa as his substitute in the shire, at first,
it may be, temporarily, but later as a permanency.
We have already noted two passages 3 in ./Ethelstan's
laws where the gerefa is mentioned in connection with
the shire, as well as with his own gerefscype or manung,
and another 4 where he appears to be exercising a function
that formerly belonged to the ealdorman. If this is the
case there is a somewhat close analogy to the Frankish
vicecomitatus.5 The comes, as we have seen, frequently
appoints his vicarius or centenarius to the office of vice-
comes, and the necessity for a substitute often arises
from the fact that the count holds several comitatus.

This theory 6 accounts for the rise of the scirgerefa,7 and
also perhaps for some of his later powers and privileges,
such as the control of the military powers of the shire.8
As the vicecomes was in all probability rewarded with

1 Zinkeisen, Pol. Sci. Quarterly (1895), p. 139.

2 Chadwick, p. 197.

3 VI. As. 8, 4. VI. As. 10. « V. As. 1, 2.

8 The gingra of Af. 38, 2 may be a temporary substitute parallel
perhaps to the comifis missus of the capitularies.

6 Chadwick, p. 231.

7 Note the continued existence of the title gerefa. K. 840: "nan
scyrgerefa ofcfce motgerefa fcar habban aeni socne ofcSe gemot." In
Latin : " nullus vicecomes vel prepositus." The last word appears to
mean gerefa of a hundred. The chaiter belongs to the Confessor's
reign.

» Dd. I. 179.

E a

52 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

land, so the later scirgerefa appears to have "reveland " l
as an appendage to his office. These developments,
however, probably belong to a later period.

The social position of the ealdorman is throughout
superior to that of the gerefa. He is a great local land-
owner, in this resembling the count, and is concerned in
many of the transactions recorded in the landbooks.
Unlike the gerefa, he has a special wer and other privileges
at law. His military duties are doubtless part cause and
part effect of this superiority. The count, in common
with other royal Frankish officials, has a threefold wer.
Socially however, the position of the ealdorman seems
almost more analogous to that of the dukes than to that
of the counts of Francia, especially when the later great
ealdormanries develop.2

Generally speaking, the contrast between the institu-
tions of the two countries is one between elaboration and
simplicity. The Frankish system is at once more com-
plicated and more closely described. The judicial com-
petence of the various courts is defined, if not so as to
preclude discussion, at least with great fulness, as com-
pared with that of the English gemots, whose relations
only begin to be discernible under Edgar. The duties
and positions of the various subordinates of the counts
are indicated, and the co-operation of the people in the
judgment of the courts, by means of the scabini and

1 Dd. I. 179b; I. 69; I. 57b; I. 181. Cf. B. 412, in which the gerefa
Abba refers to the land which he has received from his lords 833.
Compare also the connection of the sheriff with the mint to that of the
comes and vicecomes. Dd. I. 252.

2 Perhaps the nearest parallel to the relation of the ealdorman and
the scirgerefa is that of Herzog and Pfalzgraf under the Saxon and
Salian emperors. The Pfalzgraf was in a sense a successor of the
missus dominicus. He was appointed by the emperor to care for his
interests. There was a Pfalzgraf to each duke, but his special functions
are not easily definable. He tended to lose his individual character-
istics, and become like any other count. Richter, Annalen, Vol. III.
p. 734.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 53

otherwise, is traceable. The doubtful nature of the
relation in which the few West Saxon officials stand to
each other has been indicated ; of the popular judgment
there is as yet no sign in the English laws.

(c) Relations of the Officials to the Central Government.
The most striking difference between the official organiza-
tion of the Frankish and West Saxon governments is to
be found in the missi dominici of the Carolingians. This
is due in great part to the difference in size of the two
states. The occasion for such envoys would scarcely
arise in the West Saxon kingdom, where a few days'
journey would bring the king in touch with almost any
part of his realm. The comprehensive control exercised
by the missi dominici under Charles and Lewis has no
corresponding feature in England. The passage in Asser
from which the existence of such a system has been
deduced 1 gives very little ground for such an interpreta-
tion.2 It more probably describes the arbitration of the
king on some case submitted to him in consequence of
the law's delays, and it may be compared to the case
recorded in one of the charters of Edward's reign. Here
Alfred eventually sends back the case to the popular
courts.3 Royal control is so close, in fact, that there is
no place for a system of missi dominici.

In both countries the officials are directly and ostensibly
dependent on the king. In both countries local inde-
pendence tends to grow out of the local omnipotence of
the royal official ; but in England the ealdorman's growth
of power appears to follow on the temporary failure of

1 This theory is found in Kemble, Pauli, Stubbs, Pollock and
Plummer.

2 Asser, c. 106. " Si aliquam in illis judiciis iniquitatem intelligere
posset . . . illos ipsos iudices, aut per se ipsam, aut per alios suos fideles
quos libel interrogabat, quare tain nequiter judicassent. . . . Quibus
auditis verbis . . . comites et pi-epositi ad aequitatis discendae
studium totis viribus se vertere nitebantur."

3 B. 591.

54 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the shire system, for the great lords of ^Ethelred's reign
are rulers of many shires, not of one ; whilst in Francia
it is the institution of the missi that breaks down, and it
is the consequent loosening of royal control, with other
causes, that brings about the independence of the counts.

There are traces of appeal to the tribunal of the palace
in Francia which cannot be directly paralleled in English
documents. M. Beauchet1 has shown that there is
appeal from wrong judgment, as well as appeal for delay
of judgment, whilst English law only knows the last type,
which is, strictly speaking, not appeal at all.2 Besides a
number of cases on which the Witan decide 3 there are a
few instances like that referred to above,4 in which the
royal arbitration is sought.5 If the system is not so
elaborate as in Francia, there is yet proof of an effective
royal control in things judicial as well as administrative.

5. The Shire, 925-1034.

(a) The Ealdorman.

The change in the ealdorman's position is among
the most striking and best-established facts of this
period. The evidence of the charters bears out that
of the Chronicle. By ^Ethelstan's reign, as has been
said, there are apparently only six ealdormen, and
the number remains low during the following reigns.
Mr. Robertson 6 has shown that there grew up a great

1 Beauchet, p. 320.

2 Stevenson, Asser, p. 342. Adams, A. S. Law, pp. 24. ff.

3 See cases quoted in A. S. Law, pp. 314-37.
« B. 591. K. 693.

6 In several well-known passages men are forbidden to seek justice
from the king till they have failed to obtain it in the ordinary courts.
II. As. 3. III. Eg. 2. II. Cn. 17. Similar passages are to be found
in the capitularies. 754/5. 32, 7. 829. II. 17, 14. Immediate appeal
lay to the missi, both for delay of justice and for wrong judgment, and
appeal to the king was only allowed if the missi failed to do justice.
The capitularies are not altogether consistent on this point. Beauchet,
pp. 329 ff.

• E. W. Robertson, Historical Essays (1872), pp. 177 ff.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 55

clan of ealdormen, related amongst each other and
connected with the royal family, and that shire was added
to shire to form their great provinces. Even at this time
the ealdormanship is hardly hereditary ; l as with the
Frankish countships, members of the same family hold
office in different parts of the country, though the con-
nection of the land and the family tends to strengthen.
The ealdorman's position is thus considerably modified,
but there are signs that the shire system is still operative
for judicial purposes.

(b) The Shiremoot.

The first mention of the shiremoot by name occurs
in III. Edgar, 5, 1. In this well-known passage it is
commanded that the hundredgemot be held as before
fixed, and the burhgemot thrice a year, and the scirgemot
twice a year. From the mention of the ealdorman's
presence it seems probable that the shiremoot is to
be identified with the folkmoot of Alfred's and ^Ethel-
stan's laws whenever it is mentioned in connection with
an ealdorman. The compiler of the Leges Henrici
identifies the gemot of II. As. 20 with the shiremoot ; 2
and from this passage we gather that seven days' notice of
each meeting must be given, and that a fine is exacted
for repeated failure to attend the gemot.3 The bishop
and the ealdorman are present at the shiremoot and declare
God's law and secular law.4

From the mention of the fine for non-attendance, as
well as from the provision of ^Ethelstan's and Edgar's
laws for enforcing attendance,5 it might be inferred that
suit to the shire court was compulsory on all. Indica-
tions, however, have been found that attendance was not
compulsory at every meeting alike. After the Conquest

1 Chadwick, pp. 292 ff. 2 Hn. 61.

3 II. As. 20. 20, 1. Cf. III. Eg. 7. and Dd. I. 269b. Ten shillings

« III. Eg. 5, 2. 5 III. Eg. 7, re-enacted II. Cn. 5.

56 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the county court is found sitting twice a year in some
records, twelve times a year in others ; and for a long time
two half-yearly meetings of the county court are dis-
tinguished as " the great counties " from the ordinary
monthly meetings.1 The necessity for meeting oftener
than twice a year would lie, as in Francia, in the amount
of routine procedure that was involved hi carrying
through any case. It is not probable, nor do the sources
appear to indicate, that procedure was less complicated
at an earlier date than it was at those for which we have
information.2 It is very likely, then, that whilst there
were two great meetings of the shiremoot every year, at
which all men of the shire had to be present, there were
also other meetings in between for necessary judicial
business, to which those only need come who had a case
to pursue or who were summoned by the presiding official.
If this were so, the analogy to the placitum majus and
placitum minus of the comitatus would be obvious. It is
impossible to speak with certainty for lack of material,
but it is quite conceivable that Edgar's regulation is
parallel to that lost capitulary of Charles the Great,3
in which ho declares that all men should come to three
placita in the year, and to others when they are summoned.
There is, however, so far as can be seen, no transference
of the duty of attendance to a small body of men like
the Frankish scabini. It is not till a later date that
this duty begins to be specialized, and then it appears
to be real, not a personal burden.4

We are thus brought to the question of popular control.

1 P. and M. I. p. 526.

a On the other hand, there was probably far less business in the
shiremoot before the Conquest, the hundred moot disposing of the
ordinary judicial work.

8 Referred to in 801/10. 210, 14. " Ilia tria placita quae institute
sunt."

* P. and M. pp. 527 ff. But note the judices et juralore* of Yorkshire.
Pipe Roll H. I. 31. Of. Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, pp. 197 ff.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 57

The theory of it, as we have seen,1 was present in the
Carolingian period, but the extent to which it proved
a real check on official power is very dubious.2 The
capitularies as a whole certainly appear to indicate the
supreme power of the count at his tribunal, yet it is stated
that he cannot act contrary to the judgment of the
scabini.3 It seems probable, however, that he or the
missi have a leading part in appointing the scabini, who
can hardly be described as merely popular representatives.
The scabini, however, only exercise their functions in the
placita minora ; at the general placitum the popular
voice has possibly more weight. In any case, however,
there is more evidence for the efficacy of popular control
in the English courts. There are records of cases in
Edgar's reign 4 in which it is clear that the judgment is
given as that of the whole shire. There is probably
specialization of function here also : the witan of K. 693
may be, like the scabini, men especially learned in
the law ; but there is a wide difference between such
inevitable precedence and the legalized representation of
the scabini. Moreover, the records of the Norman period
show that this procedure still persists in its full vigour.5

The shiremoot, like the count's placitum, is not merely
a judicial tribunal, but also a public assembly at which

1 p. 31.

2 We have referred above to Theodulf's evidence. That afforded by
the references to buildings in which the placita were held is also against
popular control. References in English charters appear to indicate
that the gemot was held in the open air. B. 392, the gemotbeorh is
mentioned as a landmark. A gemot-hus is referred to in B. 596,
(asterisked by Kemble). A thousand men are present at one gemot
(K. 1288).

3 808/813. 172, 13. * K. 693. 1288.

5 See cases in Bigelow's Placita Anglo -N or mannica. On the other
hand, the reference in III. Atr. 3 to the 12 senior thegns points to
a specialization somewhat parallel to that of the Frankish scabini.
This institution, however, like that of the Domesday " lawmen " in
Lincoln, Stamford and other northern boroughs, is traceable to Scandi-
navian influence. Vinogradoff, Eng. tioc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. o.

58 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

deeds which require publicity are transacted.1 The
shire, like the pagus, may bear witness as a body,2 though
it is not found giving evidence under inquest, as the
pagus does, till after the Conquest.3

Both the ealdorman and the bishop are found sitting
in the shiremoot to declare law.4 On some occasions
the ealdorman and the sheriff are found in the same
gemot ; 5 on others the sheriff is found alone or supported
by the bishop.6 The power of the bishop, especially
in the reign of Cnut, has been pointed out by Dr.
Zinkeisen.7 The gerefa deems just dooms by the witness
of the shire bishop,8 and is especially exhorted to respect
and assist him. The evidence of the charters thus
supports the theory that the sheriff is the deputy of the
ealdorman, even though he is still the king's gerefa and
is responsible to him.

The large majority of cases heard before the shiremoot
turn on questions of land.9 We saw that at an earlier
date the gerefa had competence in land cases, and in the
later period the hundred moot is the first court to which a
man must turn for justice. " Let no man take a man's
property in distraint within the shire or out of the shire
before he have thrice demanded his right in the hundred.

1 II. As. 2. A lord is found for a man. II. As. 20, 3. The king's
commands are declared. B. 1064. An oath is taken. Note also the
cases quoted in A. S. Law, pp. 369, 374.

2 II. Cn. 79.

3 As in Francia occasional provincial assemblies of several counties
were held (812. 177, 12), so we find late instances of assemblies of more
shires than one in England. Bigelow, pp. 17, 64. Cf. Vinogradoff,
Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. 91.

4 III. Eg. 6, 2; K. 693, 755, 898, 1334. It will be noted that the
bishop and the count co-operate also in Francia. The question of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction cannot here be entered on. M. Beauchet has
treated the matter very thoroughly; and it is evident from his work
that the rival spheres of seculat and religious jurisdiction were more
clearly defined in Francia than in England.

6 K. 755, 802, etc. • K. 693, 732, 929, 1288.

» Pol. Sci. Quarterly (1895), p. 1405. 8 Cn. 1020. 11.

• Dr. Zinkeisen gives instances. Pol. Sci. Quarterly (1895), p. 136.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 59

And if he have no right the third time, then let him go to
the shiremoot and the shire shall set him a fixed day." 1
It is thus evident that the greater part of judicial business
is transacted in the hundred moot.

6. The Hundred.

The evidence for the early existence of the district
known later as the hundred has been given above.2
An apparent reference to the hundred court was
noticed under Edward ; the first trace of the name itself
is found in Edmund's laws,3 where the hundred appears
as a body to which payment is made. In the Ordin-
ance of the Hundred attributed to Edgar the hundred
appears as a local community,4 a body to which penal
payments are made,5 a judicial tribunal,6 a police organiza-
tion,7 and a territorial division.8 A system so elaborate
does not present the appearance of complete novelty.

It does not seem probable that the problem of the
hundred will ever be solved.9 The ruling opinion appears

1 II. Cn. 19. 2 Pp. 44 ff. 3 III. Em. 2.

« Hu. 4. 5 Hu. 2, 3. « Hu. 1. 7.

7 Hu. 2, 5. 8 Hu. 5.

' The question has recently been raised once more by Freiherr von
Schwerin in his Die altgermanische Hundertschaft (1907). His theory
that the Old Germanic word hund had originally no definite numerical
significance, but simply implied a large number, is a distinct contribu-
tion towards the solution of the problem, though it must be left to the
philologists to determine its soundness. On the other hand, he excepts
England from his general theory (pp. 176-192), finding in the English
hundred not a development of the Old Germanic hundred, formed on
English soil at the time of the Anglo-Saxon settlement, but an adminis-
trative innovation of the tenth century, originating in the personal
association of a hundred men for police purposes described in Edgar's
Ordinance of the Hundred and the Judicia Civitatis Lundonie. The
hundred moot developed from the personal hundred in consequence of
its thief-catching duties. This statement provoked a reply from
Professor Rietschel (Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung(lQQl), pp. 342-434,
Germ. Abt.), who upholds the numerical origin of the hundred, which
he believes to have consisted of a hundred hides. He draws his illustra-
tions from Scandinavia and England, and maintains that the division
into districts of a hundred hides dates back to the Anglo-Saxon settle-
ment; that the districts thus formed were organized by the people
with a popular official known as the hundredes-ealdor at their head ;

60 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

to be in favour of the existence of the district in question
before the reign of Edmund. Those who believe hi a
numerical origin, whether of individuals, of households,
or of hides, must hold that this district had always been
known as the hundred, although it is not so mentioned in
any records. Those who hold that the thing is old, but
the name new, attribute the name to foreign influence.
Mr. Adams1 has no hesitation in affirming that Alfred
took the name from Francia. A rival theory supported
by Mr. Chadwick 2 and Dr. Liebermann 3 is that the name
was borrowed from Scandinavia, and that its use is
attributable to Danish influence.4 The chief argument
against Mr. Adams' suggestion is the dangerous argu-
ment from silence. It seems unlikely that no trace
would be left in the laws of Alfred, Edward and ^Ethelstan
of a new term introduced by Alfred. A name, moreover,
is more readily borrowed from a neighbour who is close

and that in the tenth century the central government, using the
machinery already in existence, added a king's geref a for administrative
purposes, imposing a complete royal and judicial organization on the
district (p. 416). He accounts for the silence of the laws before the
tenth century by the fact that the hundred was a purely popular unit,
and therefore ignored by royal legislation ; and points out the scantiness
of the references after, as well as before, the reign of Edgar. Professor
Rietschel's argument is to some extent discredited by the length to
which the numerical theory is carried, and by his indiscriminate use of
Domesday material, but his revival of Stubbs' suggestion of the dual
organization of the hundred under hundreds-ealdor and reeve is inter-
esting, though it should be noted that Mr. Chadwick (p. 235) has
considered and rejected this theory. Freiherr von Schwerin, in his
reply (Zeitschr. der Sav. StifL (1908), pp. 261-304, Germ. Abt.), whilst
exposing the difficulties of the numerical " Hide-theory n in both
England and Scandinavia, and reasserting his conviction that the English
hundred is purely personal in origin, allows (p. 291) that before the
tenth century a district and a court existed, the functions of which
were eventually taken over by the hundred moot, which first came into
existence to deal with cattle-thefts.

1 Adams, A. 8. Law, p. 21. 2 Chadwick, p. 245.

3 Deutsche Literaturzeitung (1905), 12.

4 For the close resemblance in organization and functions between
the hundari of North Sweden and the Anglo-Saxon hundred seeRietschel,
op. cit., pp. 348 ff.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 61

at hand than from one across the Channel : of the two the
Scandinavian theory seems the more plausible.

The analogy between the English ordinance and those
of the Merovingian kings was long ago pointed out.
There is little to add, however, to Stubbs' statements 1
as to the impossibility of connecting the two documents.
There are no signs in the Carolingian capitularies that
Chlothar's capitulary was still operative in the centena,
and the relation of the personal and territorial centenae
at the Merovingian period has been a matter of consider-
able dispute.

The centena is seldom mentioned in the Carolingian
capitularies. The oath to the emperor is taken per
singulis centenis : and the missi examine the able-bodied
men who can serve in the host by centenae. The court
of the centena is always described as the centenarii
placitum. Here, again, the contrast between English
and Frankish institutions is evident. The official side
predominates to such an extent in Francia that the
centena is lost in the centenarius, whilst in England the
hundred is so prominent that we can hardly tell what
were the functions of the hundreds ealdor,2 and whether
he is to be identified with the gerefa or no.

The hundred gemot is held every four weeks, and all men
are bound to attend it on pain of paying wite.3 As we have

1 Select charters, p. 69.

2 Hu. 2, 5. The hundred man summons men to the pursuit of a
thief, and assists any men from another hundred who are pursuing a
trail through his district. A similar task is performed by the gerefa
under ^Ethelstan. VI. As. 8, 2, 4. The gerefa is mentioned in connection
with the wapentake, III. Atr. 3, 2. IV. Eg. 8, 1. The secret introduc-
tion of strange cattle into the common pasture is reported by the
tunesmen to the hundreds ealdor. Cf. II. As. 10. In the Leis Willelme
5 he is described as praepositus hundredi or greve (?) and takes charge of
stray animals. He appears, exercising similar functions, as the prefectus
hundredi E. Cf. 24, 2. The Leges Henrici 8, la, describe the head of
the hundred as aldremannus, probably an attempt at hundreds ealdor ;
the passage throwns no light on his functions.

3 II. Cn. 17, 1. Cf. Dd. I. 269 (five shillings).

62 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

seen, most cases come here before they are brought to the
shiremoot. Oaths are taken 1 and purgations made here.2
Folkright is to be declared here, as at any other gemot, and
a term is to be set for every suit.3 No man is to appeal
to the king for justice unless he cannot obtain right in
his hundred.4

Few records of proceedings in hundred courts are
extant.5 It is thus impossible to determine who presides
at the later period in succession to the gerefa of the earlier
period. A writ of Edward the Confessor's, quoted above,
refers to the scirgerefa and the motgerefa in this connec-
tion. It is possible that the motgerefa is to be identified
with the hundreds ealdor of Edgar's laws or the greve of
the Leis Willeme.

We have seen that in Francia there is difficulty in
determining the relation of the courts of the centenarius
? and the count. The clearest distinction is that of com-
1 petence. In Wessex, on the other hand, the gemot of
the hundred has apparently similar powers to that of the
shire, but the procedure is quite different in the two
countries. A suit could not be begun in the hundred and
completed in the shire, as a case could be carried on before
the centenarius and completed before the count. Thus,
apart from the position of the officials, the contrast of
the courts themselves is unmistakable, in spite of
coincidences such as those between the great county and
the placitum majus.6

7. The Burh.

Edgar's laws declare further that the burhgemot shall

1 I. Atr. 1, 2; II. Cn. 30, 2. 2 II. Cn. 22, 1.

3 Hu. 7. * II. Cn. 17.

5 Dr. Zinkeisen mentions only one instance in the charters. Pol.
Sci. Quarterly (1895), p. 143.

6 We have seen that it is possible that there were two sorts of placita
held by the centenarius himself. It is not clear at what date the special
courts of the hundred, later known as the sheriff's tourn, came to be
distinguished from the ordinary meetings.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 63

be held thrice a year.1 Mr. Chadwick 2 has brought
forward a theory, based on the Burghal Hidage and on
various indications in the laws of Edward and ^Ethelstan,
according to which the union of different shires to form
the great ealdormanries was accompanied by a develop-
ment of the burh system, primarily for military purposes,
but also for administrative purposes. The shire, according
to this theory, was organized into districts, each bound to
support a burh in its midst, probably by some system such
as Maitland and Mr. Ballard have described. Various
references in ^Ethelstan's laws, especially those mentioning
" the men who pertain to the burh " 3 support the theory,
and the silence of the laws and of the Chronicle as to the
shire of this period is perhaps significant.4 It is difficult,
however, in the face of our lack of material, to say how
far the shire system may have fallen into abeyance. If
there is no longer an ealdorman to each shire, the shire
itself appears as a judicial and administrative district in
full working order, and it has been pointed out that the
creation of the Mercian shires5 must be placed between
1000 and 1016, and is probably to be attributed to military
motives. A failing system would hardly be extended to
such a degree. If the shire system had fallen into abey-
ance it was very effectively revived. There is nothing
in the Carolingian system of government comparable to
the burghal organization. The castella occasionally men-
tioned appear as military, not political units ; there is no

1 Miss Bateson (E. H. R. (1905) p. 146) has suggested that here, again,
the double system of sessions is to be traced, and that the three meetings
of the law are only the " great " ones.

2 Chadwick, pp. 219 ff.

3 II. As. 20, 1, 4.

4 The organization of a hundred may (Chadwick, p. 247) be imposed
on a burghal system. On the other hand, it is quite as possible that
the burh system is imposed on the hundred system (Stevenson,
E. H. B. (1905) p. 349).

6 Rev. C. S. Ta3rlor. Trans, of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeo-
logical Soc. (1898) pp. 32 ff.

64 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

trace of any other local placitum besides those of the
count, the centenarius and the immunity.

Thus if the two systems of administration are con-
sidered as a whole the resemblances are found to be
numerous, yet in no case so strong as to suggest the direct
indebtedness of one country to another. The differences
in geographical and other conditions are so great as to
accentuate the existing variations in institutions, whilst
the difference of fulness in the sources tends further to
obscure the comparison. The gaps in the history of the
two countries are wide enough to leave room for many
alternative explanations of the scattered facts which are
as yet safely ascertained.

CHAPTER IV

THE BENEFICE AND THE VASSAL SYSTEM

1. Lordship and Vassalage in Frankland.

In the Carolingian Empire the influence exercised by
the growth of the beneficiary system on the local admin-
istration is so great as to render necessary a slight con-
sideration of the institutions of personal and territorial
dependence, both here and in England.

From the long and heated discussions on the question
of origin a form of compromise has been reached between
the rival theories of Waitz and Roth. Brunner has set
forth the present state of the question, whilst M. Flach
has introduced a fresh subject for debate. His main
contention has something in common with the views of
Lehiierou, who derived the whole feudal system from the
extension of the mund. To M. Flach the personal element
predominates in the relation of the lord and vassal, and
he denies the complete territorialization of the connection
during the ninth century, departing, in his second volume,
from the view set forth in his first.1 If Waitz goes wrong
in his anxiety to base the whole system of government
on landownership, M. Flach is also led astray by his
predilection for the Tacitean comitatus and analogous
institutions. M. Pfister2 has pointed out the danger of
using the French Chansons de Geste as Flach does, and
has also supported Waitz in his contention that the latter
vassals did not develop from the antrustions.3 In spite

1 Flach, I. p. 123; II. pp. 430 fit. 2 R. H. (1893) vol. 53, p. 365.
3 Waitz, II. pp. 343 ff. ; IV. pp. 250 ff.
F 65

66 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

of exaggeration, however, M. Flach may be said to have
established the priority, both in time and in importance,
of the personal relation to the territorial, and thus,
although it is the beneficiary system that most directly
concerns our subject, we must consider the vassal system
before the benefice.

The main innovation during the Carolingian period in
the development of seignorial relations is their recognition
by the government. Charles the Great not only recog-
nizes the importance of the lord as a member of society
by giving him duties and responsibilities alongside of the
count; he not only makes the benefice a reward and
condition of loyal service and a part of the military
organization of the country, but he also regulates in the
capitularies the relations between lords and vassals, de-
claring the causes for which a man might leave his lord,
and the conditions under which a lord might receive a
man who commended himself to him.1

(a) Vassi Dominici.

The capitularies indicate a very general prevalence of
the relationship. Special predominance in these royal
ordinances is given to the vassi dominici, whose semi-
official position emerges more and more clearly as the
ninth century advances.

They enter into this relation by commendation, the
ceremonial of which is best described in the often-quoted
entry in the Annals dealing with Tassilo of Bavaria.2
" Tassilo . . . venit et more Francico in manus regis in
vassaticum manibus suis semetipsum commendavit fideli-

1 801/13. 172, 16 ; I. 215, 8 ; 847. II. 71, 3. M. Guilhiermoz thinks that
Charles attempted, in vain, to uphold the vassal as distinct from the
beneficiary tie. Guilhiermoz, p. 240.

2 A. L. M. and A. Q. D. E. 757. Note also the second commenda-
tion of 787 and cf. Vita Walae, II. 17. " Mementote etiam quod
mei vasalli estis mihique cum iuramento fidei firmastis." M. 0. H.
Scriptores, II. p. 583.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 67

tatemque tarn ipso regi Pippino quam filiis eius Karlo
ot Carolomanno iure iurando . . . promisit ; " or, as the
older entry says : " recta mente et firma devotione per
iustitiam sicut vassus dominos suos esse debent." Though
Tassilo is finally condemned on national rather than on
personal grounds, the clerical annalist blames him above
all for the breach of his oaths ; the conspiracy with Charles's
other vassals is the most flagrant breach of all.1

The two sides of the relationship thus entered upon are
already partly indicated. The vassus dominicus, whether
he be a mighty duke or a palace servant, owes faith to
the king, " as any man does to his lord." He also owes
service, which may be performed in the royal palace or
in the country. Flach 2 has pointed out the three classes
of vassi dominici to which the capitula of 825 refer ; 3 the
austaldi* " qui in nostro palatio serviunt;" those who
live on their own property ; and those who have benefices
and live without, that is, away from the palace. Ex-
emption from military service is granted to those who are
living in the palace and to their men if these are with
them. For those who live on their own lands special
consideration is given to each case; whilst all who hold
benefices and live on them must go to the host.5 It is
on these last, who live without, that the general duties
of assisting the count will fall. Their semi-official position
is brought out very clearly in the capitularies. In the
Spanish Mark, for instance, new-comers are to commend

1 A. L. M. 788. Tassilo . . . confessus eat . . . vassos supradicti
domni regis ad se adortasse et in vitam eorum consiliasse."

2 Flach, III. p. 476.

3 825. 325, 1.

4 This term is used, apparently only in Italy, for those vassals who
live in the house of their lord. It is possible that this threefold classifi-
cation applies only to Italy.

6 Vassi dominici are mentioned at war in Charles's letter to Fastrada,
M. Q. H. Ep. Kar. Aevi. II. p. 528, and cf. A. Q. D. E. 782, where
clari atque nobiles probably refers to them.
F 2

68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

themselves to the count or to a vassus dominions.1 The
vassi dominici, like the count, are exhorted to do justice.2
They are described as ministeriales,3 they collect dues from
the lands of the fisc,4 and appear in categorical lists with
bishops, abbots, counts, and reliqui fideles.5 They may
be called upon at any moment to perform special duties
for the king or his count.6 The counts themselves are
frequently vassi, commending themselves, perhaps, on
receipt of their office.7 The vassi are bound to attend
the placita of the missi,8 and they are found under the
later kings assisting at the trial of one of their numbers,
constituting, in fact, the first court of peers.9 They
assist at the granting of royal diplomata. Roth quotes
from the Astronomer's life of Lewis an account of their
duties ; 10 to them, as to the counts and abbots, was com-
mitted the care of the realm, the defence of the frontiers,
the protection of the royal vills. Walafrid Strabo,11
again, compares their duties to those of the capellani
minor es.

To these duties correspond various privileges. The
vassus dominicus does not appear to have had a triple
worgeld as the antrustion had ; this is, in fact, one of the
main arguments against the development of the vassus
dominicus from the antrustion. From the scale of the
contributions which the king's missi are allowed to levy
on the neighbourhood we gather that the royal vassal is
below the count in social standing,12 whilst from another

I 816. 263. 2 779. 51, 21.

3 802. 98, 39. • Bouquet, VI. 652.

8 802. 101, 18 a; 818/9. 285, 18; 864. II. 316, 15, etc.
• Einh. Ep. 21.

7 Ann. Lauresh. 799. " Comites et alios vassos suos." Ann. Bert.
837 ad. fin.

8 826. 310; 821. 300, 4. • 851. II. 74, 8. Flach, I. p. 232.
10. Astronomus, c. 3, quoted Roth, F. U. p. 214.

II Cap. II. p. 515. This description applies to the austaldi.

18 819. 291. 29. The royal vassal who is also a count of course takes
the higher standing.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 69

passage it appears that the vassus with a large holding
is equal to the conies mediocris.1 The royal vassal has,
however, a " dignity " 2 which is to be preserved and
respected. By this is probably meant the right of pre-
cedence at the count's tribunal,3 where, according to the
Capitulare Mantuanum, he must receive and render
justice.4 The later capitularies indicate his right to
demand trial before the king himself,5 and the king's
desire to keep control of the trial of his vassals.6 The
vassi, as we have seen, have a right to exercise the royal
privilege of mansionaticum in all places, when acting as
missi, whilst the similar right of the counts and abbots
is more restricted.7

Another judicial privilege possessed by the royal vassal,
at any rate in Italy, is the right to be represented at law
by an advocate,8 and also the right to appoint one of his
own vassals to take an oath for him.9 This last privilege
is apparently of late growth.

The most tangible gain to the vassal, however, is the
land which he holds of the king. The class of vassal who
lived permanent!}7 in the royal palace was probably not
large; in this case service was rewarded with sustenance
and with special gifts. Those vassals who lived on their
own property formed a diminishing class : the greater part
of the royal vassals appear to have held benefices of the
king.10

(b) The Royal Benefice.

The relation of commendation to the benefice is well

1 780. 52. * 823/5. 307, 26. Re-enacted 864. II. 313, 4.

3 781-810. 207, 0. 823 ? 321. 3.

* 781 ? 191, 13. Note also 810, 155. 5. 801/10. 210, 10.

5 884. II. 374, 11 ; 853. II. 272, 4. An instance of such a trial is given
in Form. Imp. 46.

8 825. 326, 1. 7 819. 291, 26.

8 801/10. 210, 10. • 884. II. 374, 11.

10 779. 48,9; 807? 136, 4; 815. 262, 6; 811. 167, 7; 825. 325, 1.
Tassilo held his duchy of Pippin (A. L. M. 787, 748), and also held two
vills as benefices from Charles. 806. 127, 2.

70 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

illustrated in Einhard's letters. He writes in one case
on behalf of a man whose grandfather and father have
held a royal benefice in Genawense pago. The man
himself is too unwell to come to the palace and com-
mend himself to the emperor; he asks to be allowed
to keep the benefice until he is able to take the journey.1
In another letter the writer asks Lewis the German to be
allowed to keep the benefice he has. He had thought it
lay within Lothar's lands, and now he asks for Lewis's
patience till he is well enough to come and commend
himself.2 This recalls a clause in the Divisiones of 806,
817, and 831,3 where, however, men are expected to get
new benefices, not new lords, on the death of the emperor.
From these letters it would seem that if commendation
has been prior to the original grant it has become of less
importance than the benefice ; the territorial connection
is stronger than the personal. This makes us the readier
to prefer the opinion of M. Flach's first volume to that of
his second.4 Waitz's 5 conclusion that he who receives a
benefice commends himself to the grantor of it, whilst he
who wishes to obtain a benefice must commend himself
to the lord of the land, seems the safest formula to adopt.
As M. Guilhiermoz 6 says, the promise of a benefice was a
bait by which vassals might be secured. As we have
seen above, the duties of the vassi who held benefices
were different from those of the others, and the benefice
was forfeit for failure to fulfil certain conditions and
perform certain services,7 whether these were looked upon
as a " gift for a gift " 8 or as a duty owed from the land.

1 Einh., Ep. 27. 2 Ibid., Ep. 25.

3 806. 128, 9. " Ut post nostrum ex hac mortal! tate discessum
homines uniuscuiuscumque eorum accipiant beneficia unusquisque in
regno domini sui et non in alterius." Note also 817. 272, 9; 831. II.
22,6.

• Flach, I. p. 123, 129; II. p. 430.

6 Waitz, IV. pp. 256, 257. 6 Guilhiermoz, p. 239.

7 779. 48, 9; 811. 167, 5; 818/9, 284, 16, etc. 8 Flacb, III. p. 69.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 71

Probably the question did not present itself in that form
at that period.1

The important part played by the benefice in the
national economy is clear from the frequent references
in the capitularies. The obligation to care duly for the
emperor's benefice is included under the general oath of
fealty, along with the ostile bannum.2 The missi dominici
are charged with the duty of seeing that the royal benefices
are bene condricta* and that their owners are not diverting
them to their own use or ownership. The counts and the
officials on the royal vills hold benefices,4 in payment for
their services in all probability. The connection of the
benefice with military service is essential, as will be seen
later. Brunner's description of the holders of benefices
as the kernel of the vassalage 5 applies with particular
force to the royal benefice.

The connection of the king and his vassal was only
terminated by death or by breach of the contract. The
Divisiones Regnorum declare the vassi dominici free to
commend themselves to whomsoever they will, though
they are evidently expected, as Einhard's letters have
shown, to commend themselves to one of the king's sons.
Charles the Bald in 856 6 gives all his vassi leave to choose
new lords, but the emphatic manner of his assurance that
they need not distrust him is proof of the novelty of the
proceeding. The connection was thus for life and tended

1 It is to be noted, however, that the gradual transformation of
meaning by which honor comes to be the equivalent of beneficium indi-
cates the incumbency of duty on the land itself. Note 877. II. 354 B. ;
Nithard, II. i. and instances given by Waitz, IV. p. 216.

2 802. 93, 6.

3 768. 43, 5; 789. 64, 35; 789. 65, 6; 802, 100, 10; 802. 104, 49; 809.
152, 9; 810. 153, 14; 810. 154, 9; 801/13. 171. 4; 819. 290, 11; 860. II.
300, 6.

« 800. 84, 10; 800. 88, 50; 806. 131, 6; 811. 177, 7, etc. In some of
these instances reference may be made to private, not royal benefices.

5 Brunner, R. Q. II. p. 266.

6 856. II. 282, 13.

72 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

to become hereditary on both sides, as Einhard's letters
illustrate.1

The vassi dominici have been treated apart as forming
a specially privileged class, and also because some writers
have given them a special origin, tracing them back to
the antrustions. The latest author to revive this theory
— against which Waitz, Brunner, and de Coulanges have
declared — is M. Guilhiermoz, who, like M. Flach, derives
the vassi dominici from the king's truste, but, unlike him,
finds for them an extra-Germanic origin. He believes
that they, like the Visigothic Buccellarii, were constituted
in imitation of the household troops of the late Roman
emperors and magnates. He holds that their number
was great and their position menial, and attributes their
rise in power under the early Carolingians to English
influences. His arguments are not convincing; he does
not make good his antithesis between the antrustions and
the Tacitean comitatus, nor does he indicate at all clearly
the steps by which the antrustions rose to a higher posi-
tion.2 M. Pfister has answered M. Flach's arguments.3
The special position of the vassi dominici is attributable
largely to the royal command of land and power to great
benefices, and also to the special protection which the
king could accord to those who commended themselves
to him, in virtue of the special character of his mund.

1 Einh., Ep. 27. The man's father and grandfather held the
benefice before him. Ep. 29 refers apparently to a partition of royal
benefices between two sons of the original holder. Note also Vaissete
II. No. 105. (quoted Brunner, JR. 0. II. p. 252). " Deprecati . . . ut
nos sicut avus noster avis eorum et postmodum genitor noster patribus
eorum . . . concessit, ita et nos illis." The Capitulare Carisiacum shows
that the practice is becoming common. 877. II. 358, 9 and 363, 4.
M. Flach gives instances, I. p. 126. It is still, however a favour and not
a right. Form. Imp. 49. Migne, cxxv. 1050. " Cum de rebus ecclesiae
propter militiam beneficium donat, aut filiis patrum qui eidem ecclesiae
profuerunt, et patribus utiliter succedere potuerunt.'*

2 See Molinier, R. H. vol. 78, p. 341.
> R. H. vol. 63, pp. 357-67.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 73

The capitularies, as has been stated above, contain
numerous regulations of the relations of private lords with
their vassals. The connection is entered upon by com-
mendation,1 accompanied by an oath, whose character is so
sacred as to serve as a model for the universal oath of fealty
to the emperor. 2 There is possibly some ceremony of giving
a coin to the newly commended, but the one passage in
which this is mentioned is ambiguous.3 It appears that
the king has some control of men's commendations,4 and
the count's rights are guarded in one passage.5 The
connection thus established is for life, the causes for which
a vassal may leave his lord being defined hi a famous
passage 6 as attacks by the lord on the life, liberty, or
honour of the vassal, and failure to protect him after he
has commended himself into his lord's hands. He cannot
commend himself to a new lord without the leave of his
first lord ;7 the tie is, therefore, it seems, dissoluble by the
will of the lord though not by the vassal's. After the
death of the lord the vassal is free to choose a new one,8
but, as in the case of the vassi dominici, he is expected to
prefer one from the family of his late lord,9 and an hereditary
connection, though not yet established, is foreshadowed.
That which tends most of all, however, to perpetuate
the relationship from one generation to another is the
beneficiary tie.

1 816. 263; 823 ? 321, 3; 825. 325, 1, etc. Vita Hlud. c. 61, refers to
commendation by a third person. M. G. H. Scriptores, II. p. 646.

2 805. 124, 9; 802, 101.

3 801/13. 172, 16. 4 805. 125, 19; 816, 262, 6.

5 787. 200, 13. The account of the placitum at Istria in 804 may
be noted here. The duke promises : " Liberos homines vos habere
permittam ut vestram habeant commendationem, sicut in omnem
potestatem domini nostri faciunt." Waitz, III. p. 492.

8 I. 215. 8.

7 787. 199, 5; 809. 150, 10; 865. II. 93, 6; etc. In Einh. Ep. 63, the
lord gives his vassal commendatorias literas.

8 806. 128, 10. » 757. 38, 9. Cf. Viollet, p. 430.

74 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

(d) The Relation of the Benefice to the Vassal System.

It will be as well to consider the general question of the
relation of the benefice to the vassal system at this point.
It is at least as debatable ground as the question of the
legal origin of the benefice. As has been indicated above
in the case of the vassi dominici, Waitz's conclusion seems
on the whole the most satisfactory; that whilst the
personal tie is the older, and, in fact, the more essential,
it becomes in this period inseparable from the real tie.
The commendation may be prior in time to the granting
of the benefice, though even this, as we have seen, is not
an invariable rule, but the benefice is becoming not merely
an indispensable means for the lord to the getting of
vassals, but also, from the vassal's point of view, the end
itself, to which commendation is a means. This is a
process which is by no means accomplished as yet. On
the Spanish Mark, where practically new soil is being
settled by new men under exceptional local tenures and
customs, the distinction between vassalage and the
tenure of benefices is still well marked.1 The Spaniards
may commend themselves to the counts or the royal
vassals, and if, after this, they are granted benefices by
their lords, they are bound to do service from it as other
men do from their benefices. Thus, whilst vassalage
without a benefice is possible, it does not involve the same
duties as vassalage with a benefice. Einhard's letters
show that a benefice was a necessity to the performing
of due service. A certain man has lost his little benefice
— how is he to serve his lord unless it is restored to him ? 2
Einhard's letters also make it clear that a man might hold
a benefice of one lord whilst he was the vassal of another.3

Thus, on the whole, the beneficiary tie is not as yet
identified by custom or enactment with the tie of vassus
and senior, but it is not far from this, and is even tending

1 816. 262, 6. 2 Einh., Ep. 30. 3 Ibid., Ep. 1, 24, 39.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 75

to become the more important element in the relation of
man and man.

Into the question of the legal origin of the benefice we
cannot enter here; a good authority has pronounced it
as yet unsolved.1 A working hypothesis may be obtained
by accepting the theories of Fustel de Coulanges and
Brunner, who derive the beneficium from the precarium*
whilst recognizing, with Roth and M. Guilhiermoz, that
the precarium persists as a distinct form of grant alongside
of the benefice.3 As regards the historical development
of the benefice, Brunner 's theory of the influence of
military exigencies is the most satisfactory that has yet
been presented. It is accepted by M. Viollet and M.
Guilhiermoz, though it does not satisfy M. Molinier. It
may, however, be felt that Brunner over-emphasizes the
military character of the benefice. It is true that military
service is especially attached to it in the case both of
royal benefices and of those held from private persons,
but the personal relations of the beneficiary and his lord
are not dependent solely on this fact. It is the need for
protection on the part of the weak rather than the need
of troops on the part of the strong that fosters the. rapid
spread of beneficiary tenures. There is danger in over-
emphasis of any of the various elements that go to make
up the relations of lord and vassal, benefice-holder and
benefice-granter.

Brunner's hypothesis as to the historical origin of the
benefice may be thus stated.4 The natural process by
which lands throughout Francia were being granted out
on revocable tenures was accelerated by Charles Martel,

1 Molinier, R. H. vol. 78, p. 341.

2 The royal grants were made in the form of precaria because they
consisted mainly of Church lands, which by canon law could only
be held in usufruct.

3 A good proof of this fact is the record of holdings given in the
supplement to the capitularies. 810. 253.

4 Forschungen, pp. 1-75.

76 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

who seized a large quantity of Church lands * and granted
them out by the ecclesiastical tenure of the precarium,2
with a view to obtaining cavalry in his wars with the
Saracens in Aquitaine; his two sons readjusted the
grants and arranged the conditions by which such lands
should be held ; 3 and the process was continued under
Charles the Great and his successors as being found the
most efficient means of providing heavy armed cavalry.
Circumstances, as we have seen, tended to forward the
process of commendation, and the various classes of
dependent tenures became assimilated to one type. The
holders of benefices granted out portions of their benefices
in their turn. Whether the right to do this was included
in the first grant is not clear ; it was undoubtedly done.4

(e) The Personal Relations of Senior and Vassus.

From the territorial relations of lord and vassal we can
now turn to their personal relations ; to the rights and duties
of each party to the contract of commendation. The
lord, as we have seen, owes protection to his men.5 He
assists them in difficulties 6 and carries on feuds on their
behalf.7 He may or may not grant them benefices, but
he provides them with horse and armour 8 and leads them
to war.9 He is, indeed, responsible for their appearance

1 Roth's view has been controverted by Ribbeck. Die sogenannte
Divisio des frdnkischen Kirchengutes. Diss. Leipzig, 1883.

2 This theory does not exclude M. Guilhiennoz's suggestion that the
benefices were analogous to grants by servile tenures to unfree
dependents.

* 742. 25, 1 ; 743. 28, 2; cf. 779. 50, 14 (Forma Langobardica).

* Trad. Fris. 323. The regranting of the benefice is forbidden;
also in Form. Imp. 25. But see 757. 38, 9; 807 ? 136, 4. Form. Imp.
46.

8 I. 215, 8.

6 Einhard is occupied with the marriage affairs of his vassals,
Ep. 62.

7 I. 217, 7 ; 850. II. 86, 3. Form. Sal. Bign. 9.

8 Ermold. Nig. IV, 607. M . 0. H. Poetae aevi Carolini, II. p. 75.
811. 167, 10.

* See below, Chapter VL

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 77

there, and pays the heriban if they fail to appear.1 He
is also generally responsible for their conduct. He is
bound to prevent them from committing depredations
on the common grass.2 In one passage we are told that
he who consents is as guilty as he who commits a crime ;
the count is, therefore, to admonish the senior to punish
his men.3 More often, however, the senior is commanded
to present his men to justice at the courts. The national
administration is attempting to shift the burden of
responsibility on to the shoulders of the senior ; 4 this
is doubtless the motive for the regulation that all who
will not take lords shall forfeit their alod to the royal fisc,5
and thus become, we may suppose, demesne vassals.
We have seen before that all strangers must have lords,6
and the isolated capitulum concerning landless 7 men
implies that such must be dependent on some one who
will be responsible for their appearance in the courts.

The lord might, instead of presenting his vassal to
justice, appear as his representative hi the courts. Two
formulae show us the lord seeking justice for his vassal
against another man through that man's lord.8 This
becomes the customary procedure. The lord's duty in
this respect is merging in a right to judge his vassal
himself.

Two passages of Charles's capitularies suggest a growth
of seignorial jurisdiction. From the first,9 which has

1 811. 167, 9; 808. 137, 5.

2 853. II. 274, 13. The men may, however, be unfree. Over his
slaves the lord had absolute control. 804/13. 181, 9.

3 862. II. 308.

4 865. II. 93, 6; 866. II. 97, 1 ; 884. II. 372, 3.

6 873. II. 345, 4. « 803/13. 157, 4. » I. 218, 11.

8 Cart. Sen. 27, 30. Marculf I. 27. Form. Alsat. 5. "Supplicamus
vobis ut illi aut cui vobis placet jubeatis commendare ut nostrum
iuatitiam consequi valeamus." Note also Einhard's intercession for
his vassal, Ep. 65.

9 787. 200, 13. This passage occurs in an Italian capitulary, and
therefore may not apply throughout Francia.

78 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

already been noticed, it may be inferred that the count
suffers in some way when men commend themselves.
The man who is commended is enjoined still to perform
his duty to his count. In the other * the missi are warned
to see that royal justice does not suffer because men
commend themselves to others. The clearest reference,
however, is to be found in the Concessio Generates (823 ?).
In the case of the vassals of royal vassals : — " Si quid ab
eis quaeritur, primum senioribus eorum moneatur ut
iustitiam suam quaerentibus faciant; et si ipsi facere
noluerint, tune legaliter distringantur." 2 A later capitu-
lary commands the lords to punish their vassals if they
refuse to obey the royal decrees : 3 whilst yet a later one
declares that vassals are to have such justice of their
lords as their fathers had had of their lords.4 Appeal
from the lord's injustice is to lie to the king, who will
amend it.

From these instances it seems certain that at least
under the later Carolingians the lord had a definite juris-
diction over his vassals, whilst almost the earliest of
Charles's capitularies recognizes his judicial responsibility
for them.5 This justice and this responsibility, as has

1 805. 125, 19. This refers especially to the payment of the heriban.

2 823 ? 321, 3. Penal jurisdiction seems to be implied in 823/5. 305,
17. The lord who will not correct the violator of the peace shall be
deprived of his honor. It is possible, however, that this refers only to
military discipline.

3 851. II. 73, 8.

4 869. II. 337, 2. " Vassalli . . . talem legem et iustitiam apud
seniores suos habeant sicut eorum antecessores apud illorum seniores
. . .' habuerunt. Etsialiquis . . . suo horn ini contra rectum et iusti-
tiam fecerit et se inde ad nos reclamaverit . . . hoc emendare faciemus.'*
Cf. 819, 291, 23.

* 779. 51, 21. The " facere iustitiam " of this clause has been much
discussed. Roth (F. U. p. 213) explains it in the general sense of " act
justly." This general interpretation is not recognized by the editors
of the capitularies, who classify their references under the two strictly
judicial headings — " Recht geben " and " Recht pflegen " — to answer
to justice and to do justice (Vol. II. pp. 649-50). The phrase is found
with the meaning of " answer to justice " in 782/6. 192, 6, and in numer-

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 79

been often shown,1 is nearly related to that which the lord
possesses over his unfree dependents.2 In so far as it
exists apart from an immunity grant, it seems probable
that seignorial justice is a modified form of domestic
justice.3 The forms and terms are similar; the right of
representation, the duty of presentation for the graver
offences. Its nature and extent hi the Merovingian
period have been analysed by M. Kroell.4 These judicial
rights, however, are not identical with those conferred
by an immunity grant. One formula given by Zeumer 3
distinguishes very clearly between the benefice and the
immunity; and the analogy of the holding of the royal
vassal and an immunity which M. Guilhierinoz points
out in the Capitulare Haristallense c is not by any means
a proof that the vassi dominici were ipso facto immunists.
The grant of immunity rights by Charles the Bald, in 877,7
is evidently exceptional and temporary; there is, there-
fore, no ground for asserting that the tenure of a benefice
gave such rights in the earlier part of the period. It is

ous other passages of the capitularies; and Waitz (Vassalitat, p. 21)
and M. Flach (I. p. 96) are probably right in explaining this passage as
referring to the duty of presenting criminals at the count's placitum.
782/6. 192, 7 also connects the duty " facere iustitiam " with the
holding of a benefice. Its holder is parallel with the pontifical advo-
cate of the preceding clause. Territorial rather than personal rights
seem intended.

1 Flach, I. p. 94. H. See, pp. 19, 108. Guilhiermoz, p. 318.

2 Of the lord's penal and judicial power over his slaves there can be
no question. It is established beyond doubt by numerous passages.

3 Modified, however, by state action, as is shown by the capitularies
already quoted. Note Dr. Seeliger in the Hist. Viertelj. (1905) p. 309,
and in the Am. Hist. Rev. (1909) p. 241.

* Kroell, pp. 33-43.

5 Cart. Sen. 35, " cuius nos nunc beneficium gradante animo pro
mercedes nostrae augmentum non solum confirmasse sed etiam in novo
sub immunitatis nomine concessisse cognoscite."

6 Guilhiermoz, p. 134. 779. 48, 9. Compare also 779. 51, 21 with
803. 1 1 5, 23. The count assists the missus to force the vassus dominicus
" facere iustitiam,'-1 whereas only the missus can interfere with the
immunist.

7 877. II. 360, 20.

80 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

to the right of the lord over his unfree dependents that
his judicial control may be traced, and also the con-
nection of the judicial rights and the land. The tendency
has been, as M. Flach shows,1 to exaggerate the import-
ance of the upper rungs in what later became the feudal
ladder. The personal tie is closest in the lowest ranks;
to the precarium of the small folk no less than to the
beneficium of the great, is due the rapid development of
the system ; territorial lordship contributes as much to
the growth of feudal justice as does the seniorate.

The duties of the lord to the vassal having been
examined, the duties that the vassal owes the lord may
now be considered. A trace of the obligation that later
becomes suit of court may be found in the regulation
that the count's vassals must attend the count's placita.2
M. Guilhiermoz does not adduce any proof of his state-
ment that this duty was becoming general.3 The duties
of the vassal were general in character,4 being probably
closely related to those of the unfree ; 5 he was bound
to obey his lord's commands whatever they might be.
Especial reference is made to his military duties.

We have seen that hi the case of royal vassals their
vassals might take an oath for them at law. The counts
were allowed to leave vassals to fulfil their official duties
when they were at the host.6 Similar liberties to other
lords7 indicates that the vassals might have to perform
administrative if not judicial duties for their lords ; and
suggests, in the case of the count, that he would find it
expedient to make some of his centenarii and vicarii his
vassals. One indication of the value of vassals is given
in the passage which relates how a bishop succeeds in

1 Flach, II. p. 495. * 809. 148, 5. 8 Guilhiermoz, p. 260.

4 Guilhennoz, p. 252. Brunner, R. 0. II. p. 269, who quotes Lex
Alam. 36. 3 and Lex Baiuw. II. 14.
6 H. S6e, pp. 312 ff.
• 808. 137, 4; 819. 291, 27; 866. II. 95, 1. 7 811. 167, 9.

FEANCIA AND ENGLAND 81

usurping a see — " sollicitando clericos et vassallos eius
omnemque farniliam." l

The closeness of the tie is revealed by the fact that the
vassal swears the national oath of fealty in the place
where his lord lives,2 and that he follows his lord even to
the desertion of his wife if she refuse to accompany him.3
In the account of the battle of Mount Siintel4 there is
a trace of that personal loyalty which is exemplified so
frequently in Anglo-Saxon literature, notably in the
story of Cynewulf and Cyneheard and in the poem of
Maldon. We have seen before that Carolingian legislation
sanctioned the permanency of the tie and encouraged the
formation of such a connection if it were not previously
existent. Alongside of the organization of the comitatus,
this new machinery was coming into use for administra-
tive, judicial and military purposes. If the classification
" tarn seniores quam et vassalli " 5 was not exhaustive
in 787, it was before the fall of the Carolingian Empire.

2. Lordship and Vassalage in England.

Here, again, our materials are so scanty and ambiguous
that it is not easy to construct a clear statement of the
position of the English vassal either of the king or of other
men. For persons apparently dependent on the king we
find the expressions comes and minister, gesith and thegn,
and the precise significance of these words is hard to
determine, whilst in later sources we find the words
satelles and vassallus employed, apparently with a similar
meaning. For the Latin dominus or senior of Francia
we have the two words hlaford and landrica ; the dis-
tinction here is not so difficult to find.

1 859. II. 448, 5.

2 792 or 786. 67, 4; cf. 816. 268, 2.

3 758/63. 41, 9.

4 A. Q. D. E. 782, " qui hoa secuti potius cum eis perire quam post
eos vivere maluerunt."

6 787. 198, 4.
Q

82 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

(a) The Gesith and the King's Thegn.

Mr. Chad wick1 has suggested that, whilst the comes of
Bede is the Latin translation for gesith, this word bore
a different meaning in Northumbria and Wessex. The
Alfredian translation of Bede's comes is almost invariably
gesith, whilst Bede's minister or miles is translated thegn ; 2
but the other West Saxon sources appear to prove that
the gesith-cund man was dependent not on the king him-
self, but on some other men, and he disappears from the
laws after the tune of Ine, save for the reference to
gesith-cund kin hi Northleoda laga.

Mr. Chadwick points out that the position of the king's
thegn in Ine's laws is superior to that of the gesith, and
that the thegn appears to owe his superiority to his
dependence upon the king; and he suggests that the
gesith was never under the immediate lordship of the
king.3 In this conclusion he is in accordance with M.
Guilhiermoz,4 who, however, makes no distinction between
the Northumbrian and West Saxon gesith. From the
use of the expressions hi Beowulf it seems that the terms
gesith and thegn were originally used of the same person,
and it appears quite possible that their meaning was
specialized differently in Wessex and in Northumbria.5
The meaning of the cognate form gasindius is of interest.
It is found among the Lombards, and, to a certain extent,
among the Franks, for the personal dependents not only
of kings and queens but also of duces and judices.6 Per-
haps it offers a closer analogy than does the antrustion,
with whom Brunner compares the gesith at some length.7

1 Chadwick, p. 325, 349.

2 See instances given by Mr. Plummer, Life of Alfred (1902), p. 175.

8 Chadwick, pp. 326, 346, 349. Dr. Liebennann does not accept this
limited definition.

* Guilhiermoz, p. 94. 6 Chadwick, p. 348.

• Brunner, R. 0. II. 260.

7 Ibid., R. O. 259; 98-100; Forschungen, p. 84.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 83

Both gesith and antrustion, he says, were originally
personal dependents of the king, living in his hall, owing
special service, having a special wergeld and hereditary
rank ; both tend to become a territorial class ; both
are succeeded by a body of men which develops along
somewhat similar lines.

The chief objection to Mr. Chadwick's theory is the
difficulty of finding a class of men below the king of such
power that their dependents, whether owning land or
no, should have a hereditarily privileged position. The
gesith is a person of some importance, evidently having
men under his control. He may make an agreement
for them with the king,1 thus exercising some sort of
domestic justice. Strangers put themselves under his
protection, and he has his share in their wer.z He has to
pay a heavier w-ite for neglect of the fyrd 3 than the
ordinary ceorl, especially if he owns land. Mr. Chadwick
suggests that landagend implies a holding of some par-
ticular minimum size, such as five or ten hides,4 and that
this in its turn implies lordship over a certain number of
gafolgeldan.5 The gesith 's lands are large enough for him
to need a gerefa* and he has a burgbryce, of thirty-five
shillings.7 By the period of Northleoda laga his position
is apparently based on land rather than on personal
relations with another.8

The gesith 's position is thus semi-official, and if Mr.
Seebohm's account of his functions 9 is over definite, there
is still enough to make Mr. Chadwick's interpretation
doubtful. M. Guilhiermoz argues from these passages that

1 Ine, 50.

2 Ine, 23, 1. Dr. Lieberinann, however, explains gesi% here to mean
fellowship, not taking it in its technical sense. His translation is based
on the reading congildones in the Quadripartitus version, this being the
word used in Alfred's laws for the O. E. gegildan.

3 Ine, 51. " Ine, 24, 1, 2. 70. 5 Chadwick, p. 102.
6 Ine, 63. » Ine, 45. 8 Northl. 11.

' Seebohin, Tribal Custom in A.S. Law, pp. 417-22.
O 2

84 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

in England the thegns of private persons had a highly
privileged position, and that England by the end of the
seventh century had a nobility such as was not known
to French law till the twelfth century.1 He represents
the king's thegn as already occupying a high position in
the eighth century, holding land and possessing hereditary
rank. This he regards as an advance from an earlier
subordinate and semi-servile condition,2 and to it he
attributes a corresponding rise in the position of the vassi
dominici under Charles Martel. The Northumbrian kings
had granted out lands for the support of soldiers on the
frontier, and Charles Martel was only copying them in
his creation of benefices, as he copied them in the rites
used at his coronation.3

This theory is based on the supposition that the English
king's thegns, like M. Guilheirmoz's antrustions, were
originally largely an unfree class ; a supposition supported
by no facts. If Beowulf is to be considered a picture of
early Anglo-Saxon life, there seems no obstacle to the
acceptance of the chief's following as there described —
" duguS and geogoS " — as the predecessors of the king's
thegns of Alfred's days. M. Guilhiennoz's theory, again,
attributes a very definite meaning to an obscure passage
in Bede 4 that has been explained variously.5 The borrow-
ing of an ecclesiastical rite stands on a somewhat different
level from that of an entirely secular administrative
measure, as the Church was the great medium of inter-

1 Guilhiermoz, p. 464.

2 This humble position is deduced from the meaning of the word
thegn or minister, and from Bede, H. E. III. 14.

8 Guilhiermoz, pp. 92-100.

4 Bede, epistle to Egbert, c. 11.

6 Chadwick, pp. 367 ff. Professor Vinogradoff (E. H. B. (1893) p.
13) does not think that the passage implies temporary or even con-
ditional tenure. There seems no more reason to derive Charles
Mattel's measures from Northumbria than to give them an emphyteutic
origin.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 85

national communication. Moreover, Boniface, who intro-
duced the ceremony of unction in Francia, was a West
Saxon and would hardly be likely to introduce North-
umbrian expedients. Finally, the analogy discovered
by M. Guilhiermoz is not in reality very close. Charles
Martel, by hypothesis, took Church lands for lay purposes
— to furnish soldiers. Bede's letter states that the lands
which ought to provide for soldiers do not do so ; because
— and this is his chief ground of complaint — the king has
granted them out, for the purpose of founding monasteries,
to men who do not found true monasteries but homes of
wickedness. When M. Guilhiermoz says, therefore, of
Charles's policy " Nous sommes tres portes a voir la une
adaptation des usages Anglo-Saxons," l we are not
inclined to agree with him.

We can now examine the position of the king's thegn
and consider in what respects it presents a parallel with
that of the vassus dominicus. There is no trace of a
ceremony of commendation, though such may well have
existed.2 Whilst treason to the hlaford is a " botless "
crime,3 hlaford is not used as an attribute of the king till
a fairly late date.4 Similarly, the general use of senior
for the king of Francia does not begin to be common till
after the reign of Lewis the Pious.5

The duties of a king's thegn are somewhat vaguely
described in Getync'So, which professes to give an account
of old times. The thegn has special duty in the king's

1 Guilhiermoz, p. 92.

2 The subordination of one man to another is expressed by the
phrases ga to honda (Ine, 62) ; on handa gan (Af. 42, 1) ; hand on hand
sylle (II. Ew. 6). These at once recall the expression se in manus eius
tradere.

8 Af. prol. 49, 7 ; Af. 1, 1 ; Af. 4, 2.

4 VI. As. 8, 9 is the first instance.

5 All the instances given in the index to the capitularies are of a
later date than 840. The rapid extension of the term is, however,
remarkable. 866. II. 284, 6, senioratum means allegiance to the king.

86 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

hall,1 which corresponds to that performed by the vassi
famulantes or austaldi ; 2 he performs riding service,3
which may be compared with the duty referred to in
Einhard's letter quoted above.4 We may note, also,
Maitland's suggestion that riding service includes special
military service. Whilst the gesith apparently owes
such service 5 there is no direct evidence for a similar
duty on the part of the king's thegn, though, as will be
shown later, there is some indirect evidence.6

The general official position of the king's thegn
resembles that of the vassus dominicus. In several
instances he is mentioned together with the king's gerefa.
He, like the gerefa, is forbidden to take bribes.7 He is
commanded to keep order and obey the royal commands,8
in connection possibly with the general taking of wedd.
He is ordered to have his men under pledge,9 like the
gerefa. He is expected to assist in making the priests
obedient.10

There is no record of any institution similar to the
Frankish judgment of peers which is being evolved at
the close of the Carolingian period. We may note, how-
ever, the signature of the ministri to the royal charters of
Wessex from 833 u onwards, for these in many cases
indicate the presence of king's thegns at the royal councils.

1 GeJ>yncfco, 2. Cf. Beowulf, 1. 667. " Haefde cyning seleweard
aseted, sundor nytte beheold." The account of Gebyncfco has much
in common with that given by Asser, c. 100, of the duties of Alfred's
satellites.

2 811. 167, 7; 821. 300, 4; 823/5. 307, 26; 864. II. 313, 4.

8 GebyncSo, 3. * Einh. Ep. 21. 5 Ine, 51.

8 The use of the words miles regis for king's thegn would be more
conclusive were not the meaning of miles and militia somewhat ambigu-
ous. The institution of the heriot, recorded only in Cnut, but traceable
as early as Beowulf, suggests such a duty, and all the evidence of
Beowulf is in favour of such an idea.

' V. As. 1. 4. « VI. As. 11.

» III. Em. 7. 10 IV. Eg. 1, 8.

11 B. 393 ; B. 411, etc. The number of ministri who sign varies from
one to sixteen.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 87

A difficulty in determining the significance of references
to the thegn is the later use of the word absolutely,1 with-
out a preceding possessive. When this occurs the thegn
may be dependent on some other than the king, though
in many instances the king's thegn is evidently meant.

Alongside of the duties owed by the thegn, privileges
and rights are traceable. His social status is in some
respects more clearly marked than that of the vassus
dominicus. His burhbryce is sixty shillings hi Ine's
laws, as contrasted with the thirty- three or thirty-five
shillings of the gesithcund or twelfhyndman.2 His oath
apparently has a special value.3 Like vassus dominicus,
king's thegn is a term which may be used to include bishops
and ealdormen.4 From the special mention of king's
thegns in the Chronicle 5, as well as from other passages, it
may be inferred that they were people of importance.
Their dignity is especially referred to in Edgar's laws,6
the passage recalling those in which the honour of the vassi
dominici is upheld.7

The judicial privilege which the vassi dominici possess
under the later Carolingians is assured to the thegns by
^Ethelred.8 " Over a king's thegn none but the king shall
have jurisdiction." Though the existence of such a
privilege before this time is quite possible, there is no
sign of it in the laws. Getync'So declares that the thegn
of a king's thegn might take the fore-oath on his behalf ; 9
a right that recalls the similar privilege of the vassi
dominici. In II. Cnut, 22, 2, the same right is apparently
attributed to all thegns, whether royal or medial. Thus

1 Not till the reign of ^Ethelstan. Chadwick, p. 84.

2 Af . 39 ; Ine, 45 ; cf . Ine, 6. 3 A. Gu. 3.

4 Chron. 897. 6 Chron. 871, 874, 897, 905, 917.
* IV. Eg. 2a, " mine }>egnas haebben heora scipe on minum timan
swa hi haefdon on mines faeder.'1

7 823/5.307,26; 864.11. 313,4.

8 III. Atr. 11. • GeJ>ync«o, 3.

88 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the two main judicial privileges of the Frankish royal
vassals are shared by the English king's thegns; but
there is no proof of their existence till a late period.

Whilst it is quite possible that the thegn class originated
in landless vassals who lived in the king's hall, there is
evidence in plenty for the territorial position of the king's
thegn from 828 downwards.1 The charters record grants
of land by the West Saxon kings to their thegns — fideli
meo ministro — hi consideration of faithful service. These
grants are made fully and freely, with permission to the
thegn to bequeath the land to whomsoever he pleases at
his death. In most cases the land is freed from secular
burdens, the trinoda necessitas being excepted. In some
instances the grant is made in consideration of money.
Beyond the fact that they are made hi consideration of
past services, no condition appears to attach to these
grants.2 Maitland suggests, however, that duties may
be implied which are not expressly stated.3 Without
St. Oswald's own account of the terms 4 on which he grants
his laens we could hardly guess the many and various
duties that such a tenure involved. Bookland, whenever
referred to in the laws, appears to be specially connected
with the king — to be held, in fact, by a royal privilege.5
As such there appeared to be obligations attaching to it.
The man who has bookland, by Alfred's laws, may not
leave it from his kin but by the witness of the king and his

1 E. g. B. 396, 442, 467, 468, 491, 496, 506, 520, 550. B. 591, in re-
ferring to a transaction of Alfred's reign, relates how the king's gerefa
confiscated the territory of a certain thief " because he was the king's
man." It is not stated whether the yrfe in question was bookland or
folkland.

2 An exception pointed out by Brunner is a Mercian charter of 801
(B. 303). Land is granted by Caenwulf and his brother to their common
thegn " in sempiternam possessionem eo videlicet iure si ipse nobis et
optimatibus nostris tidelis manserit minister et inconvulsus amicus."
A general condition is found in later grants. B. 814.

3 D. B. and B. p. 317. « K. 1287 ; B. 1136.
6 P. B. and B. p. 316.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 89

bishop.1 The thegn who has a church on his bookland
must give to it a third part of his own tithe.2 The king's
gerefa has to take care that none of the wites paid on
bookland fail to reach the king,3 whosoever man the
outlaw be, if he have bookland.4 It seems as if in some
respects bookland is the West Saxon equivalent of the
royal benefice.5

We may note further the relation between service and
land in the account given by GetyncKo ; whatever is the
precise meaning of utware 6 it is evidently a service due
from the five hides held by the thegn.7 The thegn
of Bectitudines Singularum Personarum owes military
service from his bookland ; 8 and according to Cnut's law
the man who flees in battle forfeits his bookland to the
king.9 It is a far call from Cnut to Beowulf, but this
last law recalls the passage, quoted by Mr. Chadwick, in
which Wiglaf tells the cowardly thegns of Beowulf that
now their kindred will go landless when the story of their
desertion of Beowulf shall be known.10 It is thus just
possible that the custom has a Scandinavian origin, but
it is more probable that it rests on a wider basis. The

1 Af. 41.

2 II. Eg. 2; I. Cn. 11. Xote also the cyrican and bellhus on the estate
of the thegn in Ge^yncSo. Churches could be held as benefices in the
Carolingian Empire (Imbart de la Tour, R. H. vol. 68, p. 41), and
dues were owed by the beneficiary to the church on his land (nonae et
decimae, etc.).

3 I. Atr. 1, 14. * II. Cn. 13.

5 Vinogradoff, Growth of ihe Manor, p. 127. " The followers receive
land on conditions closely resembling the continental practices of
beneficiary endowment." But all thegns do not necessarily hold
bookland. Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. 405.

6 See below, Chapter VI.

7 GeJ>ync$o, 3. This refers, however, to a medial thegn, not to a
king's thegn.

8 Rect. Sing. Pers. 1. We may compare the regulations of Ine, 64 f.,
by which a gesith must not leave his land uncultivated, with the duty
of keeping a benefice bene condriclum as enforced in the capitularies.

9 II. Cn. 77, 1.

10 Beowulf, 2885.

90 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

possible grants of the Northumbrian kings, as we have
seen, give no clear evidence.1

Bookland then presents some analogies to the Frankish
benefice. " It proceeds from the wish to place the
fighting and praying portions of the community in a
privileged position." 2 It must be remembered, however,
that bookland, as a form of tenure, owes its existence, so far
as can be seen, to a desire for relaxation of the traditional
laws of family inheritance,3 and that privileges over land
already possessed are as often the subject of a grant as
new land itself.4 It is because popular desires coincide
with royal necessities that the bookland becomes a means
of securing special services from men. Maitland thinks
it possible that the tenure of bookland in the narrower
sense was modified by the practice of loaning land.5 It
is, of course, impossible to speak with certainty where
there are so few data, but all the facts we have are
opposed to a theory of such extensive territorial depend^
ence of the thegns on the West Saxon kings as is apparent
in the relation of the vassi dominici to their kings.

There is no proof that the class of the king's thegns

was hereditary any more than that of the vassi dominici.

y The expression " thegnborn " is found only once,6 and

is there used very broadly ; the passage could scarcely be

1 The instances given by Mr. Chadwick in his note on prehistoric land
tenure indicate that the early kings made revocable grants of land to
their followers. He does not consider that these were grants of book-
land, the use of the book for secular purposes being of a comparatively
late period. Chadwick, pp. 367 ff.

1 Vinogradoff , Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. 196.

3 Ibid., Growth of the Manor, pp. 143, 246.

4 Ibid., p. 216.

5 D. B. and B. p. 317. See below, pp. 93 ff.

6 Duns. 5 (935 ?). If a Welshman slay an Englishman (beyond the
river) he need only pay half the wergeld, nor need an Englishman pay
more than that for a Welshman there: " Sy he begenboren, sy he
eeorlboren."

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 91

adduced as evidence for an hereditary class of thegns,
certainly not of the heredity of king's thegns.

The clearest distinction between king's thegns and those
of other men is only found in II. Cn. 71, where three
distinct classes of thegns are described. The meaning of
the word itself implies dependence, and it is clear from
very early times other men besides the king possessed
dependents. As the Frankish royal vassal had his own
vassals, so the thegn of Oe^ync'&o was followed by another
thegn, and bishops had thegns no less than the king and
queen.1 In the later laws, however, when the word
thegn is used absolutely, the sense of service and sub-
ordination is being merged in that of rank. Dr. Lieber-
mann explains the thegn of the later laws as being little
more than a free landowner. He points out, for instance,
the difficulty of finding two men of high rank in each
wapentake to help in*the collection of Peter's pence,2 or
the twelve men of III. ^Ethelred 3. GepyncKo, which makes
the true antithesis, " pegen ond jjeoden," is professedly
archaic. It seems plain that the word thegn in its later
use implies social position rather than personal depend-
ence on a superior.

(6) The H la ford and the Laen.

In seeking a relation corresponding to that of senior
and vassus, more may be learnt from a study of the
position of the hlaford and the landrica than of the
medial thegn. The universality of the connection is
indicated by the number of passages in the laws which
have to do with the relations of the freeman and his
lord. The allusion in Alfred's preface reflects a well-
established institution. The word hlaford is used for

1 Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. 408.

2 Northu, 57, 2. Cf. I. Atr. 1, 2, and note the references in the
charters to the thegns of the shire.

92 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the lord both of free and of unfree; in Episcopus the
lord is to be urged to justice both to his men and to
his slaves ; * but it is not difficult, as a rule, to determine
with which class of relations the laws are dealing.

The regulations with regard to hlafordsokne recall
those on commendation in Francia. The witness of
his former ealdorman is required by Alfred's laws for
the man who wishes to seek a new lord.2 The power of
the count to control commendations, at least in Italy,
has been noticed above ; 3 he was also bound to keep an
account of the lords of strangers,4 though this had earlier
been the task of the missi.5 The commendation of a man
by his friends is known in Francia, though it does not
appear to have taken place in the mallus as the English
" commendation " does in the folkmoot.6 The declara-
tion that all men are to have free hlafordsokne,1* is almost
identical with that of the Divisiones Eegnorum : " Et
unusquisque liber homo . . . licentiam habeat se com-
mendendi ... ad quemcumque voluerit." Again, as in
Francia, no man is permitted to receive the runaway
man of another without the leave of his late lord.8
Treason to the lord, as was shown above, is a crime to
which no mercy may be shown as early as Alfred's reign,
and the later legislation is not more lenient to it.9 Whilst
it is not allowable that a man fight against his lord, it is
right and fitting that either fight on behalf of the other.10

The question of the real connection of the lord and
vassal again arises. Does the hlaford grant land to his

1 Episc. 10. " His inaii mini ne forSan his nyd-J»eowan.n

2 At. 37. 3 787. 200, 13. « 864. II. 323, 31.

6 802/13. 157, 4. « II. As. 2. II. Ew. 3.

7 IV. As. 5. III. As. 4. V. As. 1,1. "I will that every man who
is innocent follow such a lord as he wishes."

• II. Ew. 7. II. As. 22. III. As. 4. IV. As. 4. V. As. 1.
» Af. prol. 49, 7. Af. 1. 1. Af. 4, 2. II. As. 4. III. Eg. 1, 3.
II. Cn. 26, 57, 64.
w Af. 42, 5, 6,

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 93

man as the king does to his thegn ? If so, is the land
held by a conditional tenure ? Getyync'So shows us the
thegn's thegn holding land, but it is to the king's utware
that he holds it. He serves his lord in the king's hall,
and he may represent him at law, but there is no sign
that he holds his land from his lord or that he owes his
lord service from his land.1 On the other hand, the
charters prove the existence of loans of land made by
others than the king, from 721 onwards.2 In every
case, however, these are the grants of clerics, and the
large majority are made by the see of Worcester. They
prove the existence of an institution which offers, as
Maitland has shown, close resemblances to the precarium
and the benefice of Prankish law. The services of
Oswald's law, given at length by St. Oswald,3 are, as
Maitland says, almost feudal. The riding service in
especial suggests the similar duties owed by Frankish
beneficiaries to their lords. The resemblances are, in
fact, so striking, as to make the possibility of imitation
worth considering. The ecclesiastical source of the
custom is an additional ground for expecting such a
connection. Maitland has pointed out that there are
signs that " some of the English kings occasionally did
what had been done on a large scale by Charles Martel
or his sons, namely, compelled the churches to grant
benefices to lay noblemen." 4 He gives instances dating
from 849 5 (Birhtwulf of Mercia), 858 6 (^Ethelbald of

1 Mr. Chad wick suggests that the reversion of the heriot to the grantor
is analogous to a similar tenure of land. (Chadwick, p. 376.) If the
gesith is not immediately dependent on the king, the service due from
his land is probably owed to his lord.

2 B. 166, 271, 307, 455, 490, 608, 1087, etc. K. 617, 630, 679.

3 B. 1136.

4 D.B. and B. p. 301. Cf. the Domesday record of grants made by
churches " ob amorem regis." Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh
Cent. p. 225-6.

6 B. 455. • B. 495.

94 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

Wessex) and 908 1 (Edward the Elder). When it is
noted that the very word beneficium 2 is used in this
connection it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
here, at last, there is conscious imitation of Carolingian
custom ; though the full phrase beneficium prcestitum 3 is
not found till a later date.

Judging by the charters that are extant it is only in
the tenth century that this type of tenure is fully evolved.
On the other hand, the first instances of the laen are found
in the eighth century, and it is clear that whatever
borrowing there was, must have taken place hi the
Merovingian period. The laen is evidently more like
the precarium than the beneficium. The beneficium of
the Carolingian period is granted for a life, and is revocable
for neglect or breach of faith on the part of the holder;
the precarium is granted for one, two, or three lives,4
but is often renewable every five years.5 The laen is,
as a rule, granted for three lives,6 but does not contain
a reference to quinquennial renewal. Again, the pre-
carium usually contains a stipulation for the payment
of a census, whilst the laen sometimes, but not always,
refers to services that are to be rendered by the holder.
Above all, the precarium is essentially an ecclesiastical form
of grant, whilst the beneficium is frequently granted by
a layman. The laens of which we possess records are
practically all grants by churches, though this may be
due in part to the longer traditions and better muniment
rooms of the clergy, and at least one early record refers to
a laen held of a private person. In a document already

1 B. 618. * B. 495. 8 B. 1136.

« Form. Aug. Collectio B. 16, 17, 7 ; 6, 5, 3, 2, 15. Sal. Merk. 34,
35, etc.

5 Form. Sal. Lind. 3, 4. Sal. Merk. 5. 845. II. 404, 22.

6 Seebohm (Tribal Custom in A.S. Law, p. 525) shows reasons for
believing that the precarious grant for three lives may have had a
native origin.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 95

quoted,1 after the gerefa seizes on the thief's yrfe, a
certain Ordlaf then takes possession of his own land
which Helmstan, the thief, had as a laen from him, since
Helmstan could not forfeit Ordlaf 's land to the king.
A very interesting passage at the end of Alfred's preface
to the translation of Augustine's Soliloquies,2 is evidence
of the distinction between loanland and bookland, as
well as of the fact that laens might be granted by in-
dividuals. " Every man after he has built any cottage
on his lord's laen, desires that he may remain there for
a time . . . and provide for himself in every way from
the laen . . . until the time that he gain bookland and
an eternal inheritance (aece yrfe) through his lord's
kindness." 3

The parallel with the Frankish precarium is so marked
that it is no surprise to discover that ^EKric's gloss for
precarium is laen. We have some ground, then, for sup-
posing that the tie of lord and vassal was at times
strengthened by a grant of loanland, though it is probable
that such grants were made where no such personal
connection existed. We have also a good case for a
deliberate imitation by English prelates of a practice
prevalent among their Frankish brethren, and for the
extension of this practice amongst laymen as well as
clergy, small men as well as great. The tenures of
Oswaldslaw may or may not be the result of foreign
influence ; they are explicable on purely insular grounds,
and the resemblances may be the result of coincidence,
but the process of which they are the product was begun
by an impulse from without. It cannot be said, however,
that there is any exact parallel in England for the
official use of the benefice in Francia, or in Francia for

1 B. 591.

2 Ed. H. L. Hargrove, Yale Studies in English, XIII, 1902.

3 Compare the phrase on ece erfe in the landbooks, e. g. B. 605.

96 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the distinction of loanland and bookland (in the narrower
sense of the word) in England.1

(c) The. Personal Relations of Lord and Man.
The laws throw considerable light on the personal
relations of the hlaford and his man. Like the Frankish
senior he maintains his man's quarrel ; 2 like the Frankish
senior he has a large responsibility for his man's actions,
and a domestic if not a larger jurisdiction.3 In both
countries it is not difficult to trace the lord's duties and
privileges back to the original mund or patrocinium. We
have seen that the gesithcund man made a compact for the
men of his household,4 and thus exercised some corrective
jurisdiction. A similar authority is referred to in the
passage where men are forbidden to receive a runaway
whom his lord has not been able to keep in order at home.5
For certain offences his man owes him payments,6 and he
has a share in the wer for the death of his man,7 and
compensation from him who takes in his runaway man.8
When cattle has been stolen the hlaford has his share of
what is left when the ceapgyld has been paid.9 In this
last passage, however, we are dealing with territorial
rather than with personal lordship, and a different
problem is raised.10 II. Cnut 42, refers to the lord's
i mund bryce ; it is quite possible, as Mr. Chadwick suggests,
! that the lord's rights have developed from a primitive
: " house peace." The powers of the lord over his geneat
are extensive ; if he persists in refusing to pay gafol it is

1 Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. 253.

2 Af. 42, 5. 8 Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, p. 214.
* Ine, 50. 8 V. As. 1.

6 II. Cn. 36 (Perjury). Duns. 6, 3 (Complicity with a stranger).
I. Atr. 1, 7 (Neglect on the part of a borh). II. Cn. 42 (Ill-treatment
of a priest). Ine, 39 (Running away). In Af. prol. 49, 7 : " The
world-lords receive a money bot for most crimes," " World-lords "
may have a broad meaning and include the gerefan.

7 Ine, 74. « Af. 37, 1. • I. Eg. 2.
10 See below, Chapter V. pp. Ill ff.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 97

probable that the lord will leave him neither his posses-
sions nor his life.1 The status of the geneat is, however,
not certain; reference is, perhaps, made here to a juris-
diction over unfree or semi-free. The lord's command is
an adequate excuse for non-attendance at the gemot,2 but
this does not prove that the lord had a court of his own.
There are, however, as Maitland has shown, indications
of the 'growth of private jurisdictions, but these will
be considered later along with the Frankish immunity.
The landrica of Edgar's and ^Ethelstan's laws is in all
probability an immunist.

The general responsibility of the lord for his men is
indicated in other passages besides the well-known one
that states that no law may be got of lordless men.3 The
passage which most forcibly recalls Frankish enactments
is ^Ethelstan II. 8 : " And we commanded that if any
landless man seek a lord (folgode) in another shire . . .
that he lead him to folkright if he work guilt there, or
else make bot for him." This is practically identical
with the stray capitulum which Boretius attributes to
Charles's reign.4 " Et quia sunt nonnulli qui . . . non
habentes res aut substantiam pro quibus constringi
possint ideo malitias exercere non cessant : de illis nobis
placet ut ipsi cum quibus manere videntur aut eos prse-
sentent aut pro eorum malefactis rationem reddant."
The lord holds his men in fideiussio or borhf and is
bound to pay the wer of any one of them whom he suffers
to escape while under accusation.6 He is not to impede

1 IV. Eg. 1, 1, 2. » I. Eg. 7, 1. 3 II. As. 2.

4 I. 218, 11. An equally close analogy is presented to the passage
from Ine's laws which has been frequently referred to, by a capitulary
of 862. Any borrowing in this instance must be on the Frankish side.
866. II. 309. " Si vero servus hoc fecerit sententiae capitali subiaceat,
et dominus omnia similia restituat, quia servum suum non correzit nee
custodivit ut talia non perpetraret.n Of. The gesith's "compact" of
Ine, 50.

8 III. As. 7. I. Atr. 1, 10. • I. Atr. 1, 11.

98 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the course of justice,1 and if accused of connivance with
any of his men he must clear himself with five oath-
helpers.2 He must pay the alms penny if his men will
not.3 It may be noted that all these passages are of
fairly late date. They appear, like the similar Frankish
capitularies, to indicate a surrender of responsibilities
on the part of a weakening central government.

The services owed by a man to his lord are nowhere
fully set forth. We have seen that he might take a
fore-oath for him, and that he served him in the king's hall.
The account given in the Rectitudines of the services
owed to a lord, applies rather to the semi-free, and is
to be compared with that of the Capitulum in pago
Cenomannico datum, rather than with any account of
the duty of the vassus. It must be remembered that in
Francia the status of the vassal varied infinitely, and that
" domanial " and seignorial rights were alike in origin to
a considerable extent and tended to merge in one. The
process of feudalization was at work at either end of the
ladder. If the whole feudal structure was erected on
the basis of patronage and protection, the relations of
the lord and his humbler dependents are not irrelevant.

It is not easy to arrive at any definite conclusion with
reference to the relation of seignorial institutions in the
two countries. The analogies are close and constant,
but they seem to rest on an universal basis, and it appears
equally impossible to prove that Charles Martel borrowed
ideas from the Northumbrian kings, or that Alfred,
Edward or ^Ethelstan deliberately copied the Frankish
system of vassi dominici and royal benefices.4 As regards

1 II. As. 3. 2 I. Atr. 1, 12. 3 VII. a Atr. 5.

4 It is true that the use of the word beneficium in the English
charters is a strong argument in favour of external influence. As the
word, however, is found in very early Frankish formulae, and is used
in the precaria grants themselves, it may have been taken over when
the laen was devised in imitation of the precarium, that is, long before
the time of Alfred.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 99

the legal relation of lord and vassal it is possible that the
transference of responsibility to the lord was to some
extent counterbalanced in England by the growth of
the system of frithborh among equals. There are fewer
indications here than in Francia of private jurisdictions
apart from royal grant. None of the similarities in
detail noticed above are inconsistent with the separate
development of institutions in the two countries.

In the matter of land tenures, however, a transfer of
legal practice seems more probable. The landbook has
been borrowed from without ; the methods of booking
land might well be borrowed also. But if so, as has been
shown, the first borrowing must have taken place during
the Merovingian period, and the later developments
might well have taken place without the operation of
any exterior influence.

H 2

CHAPTER V

THE IMMUNITY

WE have considered patrimonial or domestic justice
with its possible developments and limitations in Francia
and England; it remains to compare the seignorial
justice that rests on royal privilege— the immunity — in
both countries. " It is highly probable," says Maitland,
" that the English immunity is not independent of the
Merovingian immunity ; still . . . it is a significant fact
that two different formulas should be equally open to the
blame of not deciding just that most important question
which according to our ideas they ought to decide." 1
This is the question of the judicial rights of the immunist ;
the precise meaning of the terms of the royal grant which
creates the immunity.

1. The Frankish Immunity.

The origins of the immunity are to be found in the
Roman period.2 Under the later Empire the exemption
enjoyed by the lands of the fisc from both financial
burdens and judicial interference is extended, both

1 D.B. and B. p. 278.

2 Brunner, Waitz and M. Flach uphold the theory that the immunity
is a development of the royal mund ; the protection of certain persons,
most often connected with the Church, from disturbance and harm.
It is possible that the charter of mundeburd, which sometimes includes
exemption from taxes (v. Flach, I. p. 107), and which continues to be
granted alongside that of immunity till the reign of Lewis the Pious
(Waitz, IV. p. 291; Brunner, R. G. II. p. 65), may have influenced
indirectly the position of the immunist. M. Kroell has, however,
pointed out the essential contrast between the two institutions; the
mund carries with it the king's protection against all men, whilst the
immunity charter is directed solely against the invasion by the public
officials of the iminunist's territory. Kroell, pp. 87 ff.

100

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 101

formally and informally, to the lands of potentes. These
traditional privileges, persisting under the Merovingians,
are seriously threatened by the growing powers of the
local representative of the central authority — the count.
To safeguard their lands against the aggressions of the
count, the magnates seek and obtain from the king
diplomas of immunity, forbidding all public officials to
enter their domains, and putting them in immediate
relation with the king.

The immunity is found with frequency as early as
the seventh century,1 and in the Formulae of Marculf 2
there are signs that laymen, as well as clergy, obtain these
privileges. The overwhelming majority of grants extant,
however, are those made to churches and monasteries,
and in the Carolingian period the institution is practically
confined to the Church,3 the disappearance of the lay
immunity being chiefly due to the development of the
benefice.4

The immunity is pre-eminently a royal privilege.
None but a royal command is sufficient to keep the royal
officials from entering a territory. The grant is made,
as we have seen, both to laymen and to churches :
" potentibus et ecclesiae " 5 — but in the case of a church
the grant is made to one person,6 not to a community.
The abbot is regarded as proprietor of the lands of the
monastery.

The form taken by the immunity grant is well known.
A command is addressed to the count and his subordinates
not to enter the land of the privileged person, " ad causas
audiendum vel freta exigendum nee mansiones aut paratas

1 Fuetel de Coulanges, Origines du systeme feudal, p. 341.

2 Marc. I. 14; I. 3, " loca ecclesiarum aut cui volueris dicere.'1

3 Kroell, p. 156. 4 Ibid., p. 161. 6 614. 22. 14 ?

6 Marc. I. 3. " apostolico viro illo . . ." It must be noted that the
privilege is conferred on the holder of the land, not on the land itself.
Kroell, p. 95.

102 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

faciendum nee fideiussores tollendum nee homines ipsius
ecclesiae de quaslibet causas distringendum nee nulla
redibutione requirendum : " 1 and in many cases it is added
that whatever within the immunity might have gone to
the fisc by way of profit shall now go to the immunist.2
There is little doubt that the positive right is implied
whenever the corresponding exemption is granted ; 3
the immunity grants were for the benefit of the holder,
not of the men who lived on the immunity.

These rights are thus financial to a considerable extent ;
the right of making requisitions and exacting lodging was
one of the main sources of royal revenue. But beside
these are some that seem to depend on judicial procedure.
The fredum is the judicial fine which corresponds to the
English wite ; and the right to exact this implies the
right to hold a court which can impose it. No one is
likely to hold a court of which another reaps all the
benefits ; 4 and the right of a lord to claim at the public
courts a part of the profits of justice in cases where his
own men are concerned appears to have been as exceptional
in Francia 5 as in England at a later date.6 Brunner 7
sums up the controversy as to immunist jurisdiction,
and shows that the majority of writers favour the theory
of separate immunity courts which has been so ably set
forth by M. Beauchet.8 The passage which proves almost

1 Marc. I. 4.

a Miihlbacher, D. K. pp. 73, 96, 131. Cf. the unique grant of 808
(p. 277) of profits of justice without an immunity, marked, however, as
of doubtful authenticity.

3 M. Kroell draws a distinction, for the Merovingian period, between
the immunities of the east and the west. In the west the immunist
collected the dues and paid them over to the king ; in the east he kept
them. In the Carolingian period all alike keep the dues. Kroell, p. 1 15.

* D.B.andB.Zn.

6 The diploma to Piacenza, referred to above, may be an example of
such a privilege. Miihlbacher, 7). K. p. 277.

« P. and M. I. p. 570. 7 Brunner, R. 0. II. p. 298, note 55.

* Beauchet, pp. 418-85.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 103

conclusively the existence of such courts occurs in a
diploma for Trier of 772. 1 " Nee homines eorum per
mallobergiis nullus deberet admallare aut per aliqua
ingenia praesumat condempnare neque freta vel thelonea
exigere . . . sed in eorum privatas audientias agentes ipsius
ecclesiae unicuique de reputatis condicionibus directam
facerent et ab aliis simulque perciperent veritatem."
The men of the immunity are exempted from the mallus,2
and audientice are held by the agentes of the immunity.
The same word is used of the courts held by the index
on the royal vill ; 3 and the fact that the lands of the fisc
set the pattern for all immune territories would of itself
lead us to expect to find jurisdictional privileges in the
immunity.4

So much of the character of the immunity and of its
history down to the Carolingian period may be learnt
from a study of the diplomas themselves.5 The capitu-
laries indicate the position of the immunity in the general
scheme of Carolingian government. Two Merovingian
capitularies refer briefly to the immunities, reaffirming
their privileges,6 but under Charles the Great there is
a series of regulations, culminating in the Capitulare
legibus additum of 80S,7 which recognize the position

1 Miihlbacher, D. K. pp. 95 ff. Cf. Charter for Metz, 775. p. 131.

2 Note also a diploma of 847, quoted by M. Beauchet on p. 444. " Si
vero in eadem immunitate reus repertus fuerit vel ductus, ... a nemine
distringatur nisi a jam dicto loci mandatario, nisi forte exinde latronis
fuerit eiectio " ; that is, one who has committed theft outside the
immunity must be given up to the public judge. The various regulations
as to the appointment of good advocates in the capitularies are only
explicable if the advocates have judicial functions.

3 800 ? 88, 56. 4 Kroell, p. 134.

5 From the " Capitula Remedii JJ we learn that in some instances at
least the immunist possessed legislative powers. V. Kroell, p. 266, and
M. G. H. Leges V. (folio ed.) pp. 441-4.

6 584-628. 19, 11; 614. 22. 14, " salva emunitate domnorum, quod
ecclesiae aut potentum vel cuicumque visi sunt indulsisse pro pace atque
disciplina facienda."

? 803. 113, 2.

104 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

and privileges of the immunities, and at the same time,
subordinate them effectively to the royal power. As
in the case of seignorial relations, Charles the Great
appears to attempt to check the harmful tendencies of
the main development of his period by according govern-
mental recognition, and imposing legal restrictions.1
To quote Flach, " Si Charlemagne enrayait d'une main
la formation de la feodalite qui, avec une aristocratie
livree a elle-meme, se serait peut-etre constitute des le
huitieme siecle, il travaillait de 1'autre a en perfectionner
les organes." 2

The capitularies are concerned rather with limiting
than with defining the rights of the immunities. General
commands are given repeatedly that the rights of the
immunities be respected, but there is no statement as to
what these rights are. We find, however, what they do
not include.

The general duty of watch and ward is owed from men
on the immunity, and they are bound to assist in the
general work of bridge and road mending.3 The men on
the ecclesiastical immunities are allowed, however, to
work under their lord's direction and not with the other
pagenses under the count's immediate control, unless they
get behindhand with their task.4 Few of the diplomas
refer expressly to these universal duties, hi this respect
presenting a striking contrast with the English land -books.
In the Charter to Metz, however, for 1775, we find the
clause : " Illud addi placuit scribendum, ut de tribus
causis : de hoste publico . . . et wacta vel pontos

1 M. Kroell considers that it was the deliberate policy of Charles
the Great to strengthen the immunity, as part of a system of " adminis-
trative deconcentration." Kroell, p. 249.

2 Flach, I. p. 124. Cf. Dr. Seeliger in Hist. Viertelj. (1906) p. 582.
8 782/6. 192, 4; 820. 294, 3; 822/3. 319, 11. Cf. also 844. II. 259,

Prologue and cap. I.
« 787 ? 197, 7.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 105

componendum, illi homines bene ingenui, qui de suo
capite bene ingenui immunes esse videntur, qui super
terras ipsius ecclesiae . . . commanere noscuntur, si in
aliquo exinde de istis tribus causis neglegentes apparuerint,
exinde cum judicibus nostris deducant rationes ... in
reliquo vero . . . sub emunitate ipsi sint conservati." 1
The object of this clause is to preserve judicial rights to
the king and to support the administrative rights of the
count ; 2 it is not directly stated that the men on the
immunity owe the three services mentioned, but the
inference is unmistakable. It is thus highly probable
that these three duties were reserved in all grants of
immunity, unless exemption were expressly granted.8
Reference may be made to such exceptions in a memoran-
dum of 865, which orders the missi to discover who owe
paraveredae, bridge duty, and the like ; 4 we have a few
instances of exemption. Waitz quotes a charter of Lewis
the Pious 5 in which performance of the duty of tuendum —
probably ivacta — exempts men from all other public
duties. Grants such as are found of banni and aribanni 6
suggest exemption from host duty, since the authority
who exacts the fine has the power of dispensing from the
duty.7 The history of the privileges of Corvey is of interest
in this connection, the convent having had its exemption
from military duty granted by Lewis the Pious and con-
firmed by Lewis the German and Charles the Fat ; the

1 Miihlbacher, D. K. p. 132.

2 Waitz, IV. pp. 33 ff.

3 825. 330, 2. " Liberi homines . . . quousque ipsas res possident,
hostem et reliquas publicas functiones faciant. Quod si jussa facere
neglexerint, licentiam eos distringendi comitibus pennittimus . .
nostro non resistente emunitate.'1

4 865, II. 94, 4.

• Waitz, IV. p. 629.

6 Miihlbacher, D. K, pp. 87, 153, 195.

7 On the other hand, such immuniats are, in some cases at least,
bound to pay over the heriban to the king after collecting it. Kroell,
p. 111. See below, p. 136.

106 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

last, however, limiting the number of those exempt to
twenty, in consideration of military exigencies.1

Exemptions from these public duties are as a rule of
late date,2 and indicate the advance of the disruptive
tendency. Another duty which, it seems probable, had
to be specifically reserved, was the rendering of the
dona annualia 3 to the king. This was not included under
the general head of the fisc dues from which the immunity
was exempt, as the " gifts " were payable directly to the
king and not to the count.4 A list of monasteries of the
year 817 shows how many had already gained such
exemption as well as those who were exempt from military
service.5

Another limitation to the rights of the immunist is
frequently mentioned in the capitularies. Thieves 6 and
other criminals 7 who have committed crimes outside
the immunity, and runaway slaves 8 who take refuge hi
the immunity must be hunted down by the count. For
a refusal to admit the count or his underlings the fine
is 15 solidi for the first offence and 30 solidi for the
second, whilst the third offence must be reported to
the king.9 It appears that later the count commands
the advocate to present the fugitive before his tribunal
without himself entering the immunity.10 The judge of
the immunity, therefore, had no jurisdiction over offences
committed outside the immunity ; but from the fact that

1 Baldamus (pp. 46-7) gives numerous instances.

2 Brunner, R.O. II. p. 295. Waitz, IV. p. 35. Kroell, p. 182. They
are, however, so common by the end of the Carolingian period that an
immunity grant is popularly held to involve exemption from military
service. Kroell, p. 187.

* Waitz, IV. pp. 312, 316.

4 Similarly the king's own right to mansionaticos and paraveredae
was not surrendered when exemptions were granted from these duties
under the count.

6 817.350. 6 803, 113, 2, etc.

7 864, II. 317, 18 ; 825. 330, 2. « 857, II. 292, 4.

• 803. 113, 2; 804/13. 181, 5. "> 873. II. 344, 3.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 107

these passages expressly refer to such offences it might
be gathered that the judge of the immunity had criminal
jurisdiction within the immunity. On the other hand,
in one Italian charter 1 criminal causes are reserved for
the count's tribunal, and it has been shown that a capitu-
lary which appears distinctly to state that the advocate
has power of life and death over those who dwell on the
lands of the immunity,2 refers merely to the Church's
right of sanctuary.3 Criminal causes are, therefore, prob-
ably reserved for the count, together with those arising
from neglect of the public duties mentioned above.

In civil cases, when a man from the immunity has done
wrong to one without, the advocate becomes representative
instead of judge. It is probably to an immunity that the
Capitular e de Monasterio S. Crucis refers when it declares,
" De caeteris vero quaestionibus, quas aut alii ab ipsis
aut ipsae quaerunt ab aliis, secundum consuetudinem
ante comitem vel vicarios eius justitiam reddeant et
recipiant." 4 There is a distinction, however, between
the free and the unfree ; the freemen may themselves
appear at the count's tribunal to defend themselves,5
whilst the unfree, if not summarily punished by the
advocate, are presented or represented by him at the
public courts.6 If a man of the immunity is the injured
party it seems that if free he will seek justice himself
at the count's tribunal, whilst if he is unfree the advocate
will seek it for him.

1 Charter for Novalese. 845. "'Pro criminalibus culpis . . . non
est licitum iudicare, ante comitem eiusdem loci iustitias reddant."
Quoted Kroell, p. 213. Cf. Form. Imp. 43, " Null us comes aut iudiciaria
potestas eos de quibuslibet causis distringere praesumet, exceptis
criminalibus causis."

3 810 ? 158, 1. 3 Kroell, p. 211. * 822/4. 302, 5.

6 787 ? 196,5. " Ceteri vero liberi homines qui vel commendationem
vel.beneficium ecclesiasticum habent sicut reliqui iustitias faciant." At
a later date the outsider may claim justice at the court of the immunity.
Bnmner, R. 0. II. p. 301.

6 806 ? 211, 16.

108 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

It is not probable, however, that there was any simple
or universal limitation of immunist jurisdiction. Accord-
ing to Dr. Seeliger,1 it cannot be classified as equivalent
to that of the centenarius or of the count; to the later
haute justice or to the later basse justice. The significance
of the Carolingian period for the history of the immunity
lies not so much in the increased competence of the tribunal
as in the acceptation of the institution as a part of the
organization of the State.

Another limitation to the grant is made in favour of the
king himself. Any charter of this period which renounces
the royal right of entering the territory is to be regarded
as spurious. As we have seen, the immunity was theoreti-
cally immediately dependent on the king, and justice
might be sought directly of him. Some charters exclude
the missi,2 but as a rule these envoys of the Crown might
enter the immunities.

The form of the grant is perpetual,3 but it is usually
renewed on the death of the grantor. That granted to the
Spaniards of the March 4 is of interest, as it appears to
secure to them a peculiar communal justice with duty of
suit to the count's court only for " the greater causes."

Expressions are found which suggest that certain
possessions had a right of immunity without a definite
grant. We find that a right of immunity is granted to
Corvey " talem . . . qualem omnes ecclesiae in Francia
habent," and the language of the late capitularies suggests
that every church must be an immunity.5 This is pro-

1 Hist. Viertelj. (1906) p. 580; (1905) p. 313. Thus over-definite
limitations are set by Waitz, IV. p. 453 ; Brunner, R. G. II. p. 302.

2 Miihlbacher, D. K. pp. 76, 91, 192.

3 Marc. I. 3. " Tarn presentis quam futuris temporibus . . . per-
maneat." Cf . also the references to hereditarius jus in the charter for a
lay immunity quoted by M. Beauchet, p. 472.

* 844. II. 259, 1, 3.

6 865, II. 92, 2. "Ut ecclesiae Dei per totius regninostri . . . sub
nostrae immunitatis tuitione securae . . . permaneant." Cf. 869. II.
333, 1.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 109

bably due to the great extension of immunities ; there is
no sign that such rights were ever held without express
royal grant. An expression in the Capitulare Haristd-
lense which has been taken to mean that the benefices
of all royal vassals were ipso facto immunities l need not
bear this interpretation. A late capitulary appears to
indicate the existence of immune rights without an immune
grant, the royal officials being resisted not only in immu-
nities but in " cuiuslibet hominis potestatem vel proprie-
tatem." 2 This passage appears to indicate the extension
of seignorial rights to a considerable extent, and increases
the probability of seignorial jurisdiction apart from
immunity grants : its importance, however, may be
exaggerated, as it is found only in Ansegis's collection.
Some passages quoted by Waitz appear to set the question
beyond doubt, at any rate in the case of ecclesiastical
benefices. A passage from the works of Hincmar declares
that the lands from which the vassals owe military
service are under the royal immunity and ought to be
defended by the king for the use of the Church.3 A charter
of Lewis the German grants to Saint Gall the same rights
that other monasteries and benefices have.4

It seems probable, therefore, that rights similar to
those conferred by an immunity charter were recognized
alongside of the more regular immunities. The sources
do not, however, indicate the existence of these un-
chartered franchises till late in the Carolingian period,
for, as we have seen, the analogy of the vassus dominicus
and the iudex immunitatis in the Capitulare Haristallense

1 779, 48, 9. " Ut latrones de infra immunitatem . . . presente-
tur . . . vassus noster, si hoc non adimpleverit, beneficium et honorem
perdat, et qui beneficium non habet, bannum solvat.'8 M. Beauchet
thinks that an immunity grant always accompanied the grant of a royal
benefice.

« 864, II. 317, 18. Cf. Flach, I. p. 103.

3 Hincmar. Quoted Waitz, IV. p. 295.

* Quoted Waitz, IV. p. 295.

110 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

cannot be accepted as proof that the judicial rights of
the vassi dominici were equivalent to those of the
immunists.1

The official at the head of the immunity is the advocatus,
also called the vicedominus on ecclesiastical immunities.
His duties, as we have seen, are to represent the men of
the immunity when necessary at the count's tribunal ; 2
and to preside over the courts of the immunity itself.3
The need for a lay representative and defender on the
part of ecclesiastics had long before created a defensor
ecclesiae* but his importance is much increased by the
judicial rights conferred by the immunity, and the lay
immunist also has his advocate.5 The importance of
his position is indicated by the frequent references in
the charters to the appointment of good advocates.6
According to some passages they are to be appointed by
the people and count.7 Some of the charters give the
immunist the right to choose his own advocate ; 8 in one
passage the missi elect him ; 9 by one charter he appears
to have been nominated by the king himself,10 and in
a capitulary he is called " advocatus noster." u The
advocate is not appointed for life,12 and limitations are
set to his selection.13

These restrictions on the choice of an advocate are
signs of the determination of the Carolingian kings

1 See above, p. 79.

2 787 ? 196, 1 : " per advocatum . . . causa ipsa ante comite vel
judice veniat."

8 787 ? 196, 1 : " (episcopus) faciat eum per advocatum iustitiam
recipere."

* Brunner, B. 0. II. p. 303. 8 802. 101, 18a.

8 803. 93, 13; 802. 101, 18a; 790. 201, 3.

7 809. 151, 22; 806. 124, 12; 802. 210, 11.

8 Waitz, IV. p. 469; cf. charter of 856. "Advocatus eorum quam
ipsi monachi cum consensu nostro elegerint nostra vice eos adiuvet
. . . et defendat." Cf. also 822-3, 319, 9. "Episcopus una cum
comite advocatum elegat."

9 803. 115, 3. 10 Waitz, IV. p. 469.

11 826. 310. M 825. 326, 4. « 801/13. 172, 14; 801/10. 210, 11.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 111

to keep an effective control on the administration of
the immunities. The advocate is almost as much a
representative of the royal as of the ecclesiastical
power.1 The most striking instance, however, of the
royal concern for the immunities, is the Capitulare legibus
additum of 803. Here a privilege which had been granted
to a few isolated monasteries 2 is extended to all the
immunities and given the sanction of law, not merely
of royal authority. The man who infringes the immunity
or does any violence within it pays 600 shillings.3 From
the charters we gather that of this composition one-third
went to the fisc and two-thirds to the judge of the
immunity.4 We find this payment itself referred to at
a later date by the name of " immunity." 5

2. The Anglo-Saxon Franchise.

If it is difficult to disentangle the personal and terri-
torial elements in the history of seignorial privilege in
Francia, it is impossible in England. Professor Vino-
gradoff indicates four distinct " Saxon roots of the
manor," 6 and three at least of these must be examined to
find the equivalent of the Frankish immunity. If book-
land supplies a parallel for the benefice, it also has points
hi common with the immunity; and the soke, and the
position of the landrica must also be considered.

The difficulties of the problem are further increased by
the fact that there is a far wider margin of uncertainty,
both as to the facts themselves and as to their chronology,
in the history of privileged private jurisdictions in
England. One can venture to do little more than tread
cautiously in the footsteps of Maitland.

1 Kroell, p. 264

2 Mvihlbacher, D. K. p. 173 (779. St. Marcel), p. 192 (782. St. Martin
of Tours).

8 807. 113, 2. Brunner, R. G. II. p. 297, points out that this is the
wergeld of the invading count. Cf. Form. Imp. 15.

* See note 6. 5 832. II. 64, 11 ; 876. II. 101, 3.

6 Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. pp. 340-5.

112 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

In the second section on " Sake and Soke " in Domesday
Book and Beyond,1 Maitland suggests that the private
jurisdictions which existed to so great an extent under
Edward the Confessor were no innovation, but are to
be traced back to the tenth and perhaps even to the
eighth century. Traditions and formulae alike bear the
signs of age.

The chief and almost the only source of our inf ormation
on the subject is to be found in the land-books. The
diplomatic contrast between the English and Frankish
charter of privilege is marked; the command to the
officials not to enter the lands of the immunist is lacking
in the English book, whilst stress is rather laid on the
exemption from fiscal burdens. There is no one official
type of charter ; the forms vary locally, and thus there
is no official collection of formulae comparable to the
Frankish Formulae Imperiales. Nor is there any un-
ambiguous reference in the laws. There is, hi fact, no
one name to correspond to the Frankish emunitas,2 and
thus from the first it is apparent that the position of
these English liberties in the national system differ
considerably from that of the immunities, whose rights
are recognized and enforced by legislation.

The English grants are, like the Frankish, made almost
exclusively in favour of the Church, and they appear to
originate in financial privileges. An early example is
the grant of ^Ethelweard of the Hwicci in 706.3 " Ut ab
omni publico vectigali, a victu, ab expeditione, ab opere
regio sit libera, tantum ut aecclesiae praefatae beatae
Mariae . . . cuncta quae in eo loco ad aptum et ad utilita-
tem pertinere possunt serventur." This grant stands
almost alone at this date. It is particularly remarkable

1 D. B. amd B. pp. 258 ff.

* Freol* is used in some late charters, but is in no general use.

* B. 116.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 113

• **

in its apparent reference to military duty, but expeditio
here may be taken to mean no more than riding duty.
There is no sign of exemption from judicial dues such
as the Frankish freda, however ; the privilege appears to
be merely financial. A general grant of exemption from
publicis vectigalibus is made to the monasteries and
churches of his kingdom by ^Ethelbald of Mercia in 749,1
the Trinoda Necessitas being reserved. Two Kentish
grants of 759-765 2 concede to the privileged lands all
the tribute which was given thence to the kings. It
is in 767 that the first reference to the profits of justice
is found in a grant by Uhtred of the Hwicci,3 to a certain
^Ethelmund ftdeli meo ministro. The land is freed from
all public tribute, small and great, and all services of
king or prince except the Trinoda Necessitas, and it is
added, " Interdicimus ut si aliquis in hac . . . terrain
aliquid fores furaverit alicui solvere aliquid nisi specialiter
pretium pro pretio ad terminum, ad penam nihil foras."
The simple payment of the bot — the angild — is to be made
ad terminum, and no other penalty without. This
appears to imply that other payments may be made
within; and it is to be noted that the theft in question
has been committed without the territory. Again, the
fact that the payment is to be made ad terminum, sug-
gests that no court could be held on the land in question ;
or at least that the lord could represent at justice any
person on his land. A grant by Offa of the preceding
year is endorsed in 799-802 by Pilheard, comis regis.*
The land, granted in this case to an abbot, is freed " ab
omnium fiscalium redituum operum onerumque seu
etiam popularium conciliorum, vindictis nisi tantum
praetium pro praetio." The Trinoda Necessitas is again
reserved. The reference to the popular councils suggests
forcibly freedom from suit to shire and hundred, which,

1 B. 178. 2 B. 192, 194. a B. 202. * B. 201.

114 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

as Maitland points out,1 is a duty analogous to that of
fyrd sokn. Even apart from the fact that we have no
data as to the existence or constitution of such popular
courts in Mercia, it would be dangerous to press the mean-
ing of this isolated phrase. Other instances 2 are found
of the grant of angild — singulare pretium — pretium pro
pretio — coupled with the provision that no other external
payment is to be made.3 Angild is referred to as a fourth
causa with the Trinoda Necessitas.4 The first example
of the grant in English is found in 883, in a charter of
the ealdorman ^Ethelred of Mercia for Berkeley.5

It is to be noted that only Mercian grants are found
before the ninth century. The majority of early charters
of all kinds now extant are Mercian, but if the foreign
land-book became common more speedily in Mercia than
in Wessex, it is quite possible that this particular form
of privilege was also developed earlier in Mercia. The
first West Saxon charter that refers to the angild is
granted by Egbert in 835,6 though there are general
grants of privileges 7 of 825, 826, and 828, in which the
Trinoda Necessitas is reserved and in one of which juris
comprehensio intus et foris is granted.8 In the charter
of 835 the general term witereden 9 is used for the judicial
payments that are not to go out ; we have here a parallel
for the Frankish freda. The general services of enter-
tainments, conveyances, etc., from which the grant frees
the land, are very similar to those referred to in the

1 D. B. and B. p. 274.

2 B. 351, 357, 368, 370, 400, 455, 487.

3 B. 351, 368, 370, 487. * B. 370, 487.

5 B. 551. " ^Eghwelces >inges to freon ge wiS cyning, ge wiS
ealdorman, ge wiS gerefan aeghwelces J>eodomes lytles and micles, butan
fyrd socne and fsesten geworce and brycg geworce and angyld wiO
ofcrum and noht ut to wite."

8 B. 413. 7 B. 389, 390, 391, 393, 395.

8 B. 395.

• Found also in B. 447 (general exemption by JStkelwulf of the
tenth mansio of all Church land) ; B. 544.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 115

Frankish charters; in one case the foreign expression
appears to be used.1

Egbert's charters, then, appear to prove that the profits
of justice were granted out to monasteries and to private
persons by the beginning of the ninth century. The right
that " nought should go out to wite," is the right to re-
ceive the wite ; and some charters, as Maitland shows,2
seem to indicate that the wite is exacted within the land
by the authority who pays the angild or sees that it is
paid. Freedom against the ealdorman and the gerefa 3
may mean merely freedom from performing services for
them ; but may include freedom from attendance at their
courts, or subjection to their jurisdiction, and correspond
to the absque introitu indicutn of the Frankish immunity.
Again, the right of furis comprehensio appears to indicate
judicial rights, of however summary a character. The
clearest evidence is given by a charter of 904 in which
Edward concedes to the Taunton men of the Bishop of
Winchester the same rights as are enjoyed by those who
dwell on the lands of the fisc, and to the bishop judgment
in secular matters as it is exercised in matters pertaining
to the king.4

It is only with the grants of Edward the Confessor
and the statements of Domesday,5 that certainty as to the
customs of the English immunity can be reached. Here
it is found covering whole hundreds, as in Francia several
centenae might be included under an immunity. From

1 B. 395. Parafrithis = paraveredis in Francia. Found as palefridis
in B. 413; parmredis, B. 544.

2 D. B. and B. 275, 292. Note especially B. 357. " Etsi malus homo
in aperta scelere tribus vicibus deprehensus sit, ad vicum regis
reddatur."

3 B. 551, quoted above.

4 B. 612. " Et omnia saecularium rerum iudicia ad usus praesulum
exerceantur eodem modo quo regalium negotiorum discutiuntur
iudicia."

5 See, for instance, K. 1342. Dd. I. 172b, 1.

I 2

116 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

these lands the sheriff is excluded, and they owe no suit
at hundred or shire ; but as in Francia criminal causes
were reserved for the count's tribunal, so the kings of
England reserve to themselves six or eight " pleas of the
crown." J It is difficult to believe that these extensive
rights are of mushroom growth ; Maitland's theory seems
the only reasonable explanation of the state of the country
in the eleventh century.

Maitland refers to the lord of an immunity certain
passages in the laws which mention the landrica 2 or
land hlaford. These all belong to ^Ethelstan's reign or
later. The land hlaford of VI. As. 1 3 appears to be
the owner of bookland to which full judicial privileges
have not been conceded,4 but later passages give the
land hlaford a semi-official position. He takes half
the fine for non-payment of tithe, whether the offender
be a king's man or a thegn's.5 He shares with the
hundred the goods of a thief after the ceapgild has been
paid,6 and he shares with the hundred if a beast from
a distance has been brought in without notice given,
keeping it as his own in some cases.7 He takes wedd
from the tihtbysig, jointly with the wapentake,8 and from
a thief jointly with the king's gerefa,9 and receives
payments from men who avoid the ordeal,10 who own
cattle not in borh,11 or who maintain heathendoms.12
If he fail to do his duty the fine falls to the king.13

These laws assume, as Maitland says,14 that wherever

1 P. and M. II. 453. Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent.
p. 112.

2 Dr. Liebermann also ; he translates as a rule by Immuniliitsherr.

3 Dr. Liebennann translates " obere Grund-herr."

4 The fact that all bookland was not immune is illustrated by I.
Atr. 1, 14. The gerefa collects the king's wite from the bookland;
nothing goes out as wite from the immunity.

8 II. Eg. 3, 1. « III. Eg. 7, 1. 7 IV. Eg. 8. 11.

8 III. Atr. 3, 2. » III. Atr. 7. 10 III. Atr. 4, 1.

11 Northu. 49 (1028-1060). " Northu. 54. M Northu. 59.

14 D. B. and B. p. 286. Cf. Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, p. 216.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 117

an offence is committed there will be a landrica to receive
payments. This would indicate a considerable extension
of the immunity, but as there were certainly lords of
half-hundred and hundred immunities, and much book-
land was under immunity, it is not an impossible explana-
tion. But for the fact that the landrica is in one instance1
coupled with the king's gerefa, the word might be ex-
plained as a paraphrase for the royal official; as it is,
these passages must be taken as the public recognition
of extensive private financial and judicial rights 2 in
territorial lords, whether holding land by book or not,
and thus they may be said to offer a parallel to the
passages in the capitularies which define the legal position
of the immunity.

The landrica does not make his appearance till well
on in the tenth century, and the great extension of the
immunity in England probably belongs to the period
when the royal power is weakening and the great
ealdormanries are being built up. We have seen, how-
ever, that the earliest examples of grants of sake and
soke — if they may so be called — belong to the eighth
century. If foreign influence, therefore, is responsible
for their existence, it is Merovingian, not Carolingian,
and it comes to Wessex by way of Mercia rather than
directly from Francia. Yet the fact that Egbert, who
spent at least three years overseas, is the first of West
Saxon kings to make grants of this nature, suggests
that he may have been influenced by what he had
gathered there of the place of the immunity in the
Frankish political system.

Beside the territorial jurisdiction of the thegn holding
bookland and the land hlaford, the grants of sake and

1 III. Atr. 7.

8 There does not appear to be any parallel in England for the
immunist legislation of the Capitula Remedii ; for the customs of
Qswaldslaw do not deal with criminal law.

118 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

soke created a personal jurisdiction which cuts across
the territorial immunities, " keeping some people out
of them, and joining other people to them hi spite of
their place of abode " ; x the soke over persons which added
so much to the difficulties of the compilers of Domesday
Book.2 From Domesday Book it appears that the right
of soke or jurisdiction over men apart from their lands,
may be possessed by the king, by magnates or by com-
munities, and may be divided between two lords,3 whilst
there are cases of men whose soke goes about with them,
so that they can seek justice wherever they please. We
have seen that the Frankish immunity was conceded to
a person, not to a territory,4 and have noted instances
of benefices held from one lord by the vassal of another
lord,5 but this last irregularity seems to be dying out,
and there is nothing hi Francia parallel to the entangle-
ments of personal and territorial relationships of
Domesday England.

To come to matters of detail; hi both countries the
grant is made by the king as a rule. There are examples,
however, hi England if not in Francia, of grants made by
great men, and in many cases it is clear that they are
regranting privileges which they have gained from the
crown. In some instances the consent of the king is
referred to in the body of the charter. There is no sign
that these grants needed to be confirmed after the death
of the grantor; old charters are brought forward as
sufficient proof. As Brunner 6 has indicated in his history
of the charter, the position of the English book is unique
in its intrinsic value. There are a few instances where
grants are confirmed by later kings, but in such cases

1 Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, p. 215.

2 Ibid., Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. 126.

3 Ibid., p. 125.

4 Kroell, p. 95. See above, p. 101. 6 See above, p. 74.
• Brunner. Rechtayeschichte der Urjcunde, 1880.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 119

the confirmation is frequently no more than an endorse-
ment of the old book.

The holders of the immunity are as a rule ecclesiastical,
but there are instances of grants being made in favour
of thegns or ealdormen,1 as in the case of Frankish
laymen hi the Merovingian period.

The similarity and the difference in the terms of the
grant in the two countries has been already indicated;
the like nature of the services from which the immunist
is exempt, the possible exemption from shire and hundred
as from mallobergiis ; the reservation of the payment
for crimes committed outside the land ; and, on the other
hand, the absence in England of the formula forbidding
the royal officials to enter the immunity. We may note
in this connection the cases, which, according to Cnut,2
are reserved for royal judgment, unless the king will
grant them to any man. Maitland 3 sees in this clause
an attempt on the part of a strong king to regain rights
that his predecessor had been surrendering over readily.
The inclusion of fyrdwite among these pleas that might
be granted out is of interest, for whilst Domesday gives
instances of delegated powers of this nature, there is
only one early charter extant, which expressly concedes
freedom from the Trinoda Necessitas.4 Compared with
the later Carolingians the West Saxon kings seem to
have held more firmly to their right of enforcing military
service, though it is difficult to institute a fair comparison
when in all probability many charters have been lost on
both sides.

1 B. 202, 438, 455, 557. 2 II. Cn. 12.

3 D. B. and B. p. 282.

4 Crawford charters, p. 6. Athelstan to Crediton. 930. " Ut ilia
earn sine expeditione, profectione arcis pontis constructione omnique
regalium vel secularium tributorum exactione, liberaliter . . .
habeat." Cf. B. 240. " Ut nee pontem nee arcem facere debeant."
Kemble, however, marks these words as later interpolations. They
do not occur in the oldest MSS. of this charter,

120 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

There is no worldly sanction attached to the keeping of
these charters comparable with the fine of 600 solidi
that guards the Frankish immunity. An anathema is
a sufficient defence. Nor, on the other hand, does the
gerefa of the lord of an English immunity appear to
occupy a position of such public importance as does the
tf> Frankish advocate. It is possibly to the gerefa on some
such immunity that the tract Be Sceadwisan Gerefan 1
refers, but this is a private treatise, and no state enact-
ment. It is, again, possibly the gerefa of an immunity
who is allowed to take an oath for his lord 2 as to the
character of the lord's men. These are, however, late
passages, and even with their assistance we cannot
find an office either so definite or so important as that of
the Frankish advocate.

On the whole, then, we incline to think that whilst
the English immunity may very possibly have owed
something to the Frankish immunity at the outset,
the Church here also being a ready means of connection,
the later developments of the institution in this country
were independent of foreign influence.

3. The Lands of the Fisc : a Comparison of De Villis
and Be Sceadwisan Gerefan.

Whilst it has been denied by some writers 3 that the
royal estates in Francia possessed, ipso facto, immune
rights, the sources appear unequivocally to connect the
demesne vills with the immunities of other men. Run-
aways must be delivered up from the lands of the fisc ; 4
bad corns are to be rejected there as in the other immuni-
ties ; 5 services must be performed from them as from

1 Liebennann, p. 453 ; see below.

8 I. Atr. 1, 2 ; II. Cn. 30, 1.

3 Beauchet, p. 454. 857. II. 292, 4.

5 864. II. 314, 8. "[Et in omnibus civitatibus et vicis et villis tarn
nostris indoininicatis quam et in his, quae de immunitate sunt . . .
denarii . , . non nisi men et bene pensantes accipiantur."

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 121

other immunities ; l and their rights are to be respected
similarly.2

Everything appears to bear witness to the antiquity
of this immunity ; 3 indeed, there is little doubt that the
privileges of royal lands set the pattern for other privileged
lands ; 4 and that the origin of the immunity is to be
sought in an extension of the rights of the fisc to the
property of private persons.

The royal vills are sometimes granted out as benefices.5
It does not appear that the privilege is attached to the
land, for in such instances the immunity is matter for
a separate grant.6 In England also the kings make
grants from their own lands, but it is not clear whether,
in the earlier period, the privilege requires a grant or
if it attaches to the land itself.

In both countries the royal privilege appears to set
the standard for grants to other men — " the king himself
is the first of all immunists." 7 Thus the Council of
Mainz declares that the immunities of the Church ought
to be " sub defensione regis sicut propriae sunt heredi-
tates " ; 8 and Edward the Elder,9 as we have seen,
grants to Taunton privileges such as the king's men have
and judgments such as are held for the king's business;
whilst a later charter 10 makes land " swa freols on callan
fingan eall swa ^aes cinges agen innland."

It is thus worth considering the administration of the
royal vills as set forth in De Villis,11 and their relation to
the national system. Into the economic side of the

1 820. 294, 3. " Qui pontes faciunt, aut de immunitatibus aut de
fiscis."

2 864. II. 313, 5.

3 Waitz, IV. p. 289. Brunner, R. G. II. p. 287.

4 Brunner, R. 0. II. p. 299.

5 Ann. Bert. 858. " Distribuens comitatus, monasteria, villas
regias atque proprietates."

8 Brunner, R. 0. II. p. 292. ' D. B. and B. p. 276.

* 847. II. 178, 6. • B. 612. 10 K. 821. u 800 7 83-91,

122 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

capitulary, as of the whole question of seignorial rights,
it is, of course, impossible to enter. The political signi-
ficance of the capitulary is, however, considerable.

It represents a determination on the part of the central
government to hold fast to the fiscal rights of the crown.
The king was largely dependent on the vills for mainten-
ance ; l they furnished probably the greater part of his
income. Thus the note of the capitulary is struck in the
first clause : " Volumus ut villae nostrae, quas ad opus
nostrum serviendi institutas habemus, sub integritate
partibus nostris deserviant et non aliis hominibus."
The ad opus nostrum of the Capitular e Aquisgranense 2
runs through this capitulary also like a refrain. It is
in all probability based on an examination into the lands
of the fisc, of the results of which one example is given
in Boretius ; 3 and thus may be viewed as a distinctly
political measure.

On the other hand, it is not cast in the formal mould
of a capitulary. It is not only lacking in any logical
arrangement, being among the most incoherent as among
the longest of the capitularies ; but it has no superscription
or date, and no reference to the king or emperor.
But for palaeographical evidence, its date would be even
more doubtful than it is now. It has hardly the character
of a public document. Dr. Gareis 4 suggests that in it we
have a reflection of the amis and policy of Ansegis,
servant and missus of Charles from 807 on, rather than
of Charles himself, on whom Gibbon poured his scorn
for concerning himself over " the care of his poultry
and even the sale of his eggs."

1 832. II. 64, 6. " Ut inquirant missi nostri villas et cortes, unde
regis expensa ministrari solita sit ... et quae in transitu domni
imperatoris serviri debent, vel missis transeuntibus necessaria
ministrare."

2 801-813. 171, 5, 6, 8. 3 810 ? 250-256.

4 Oermanistische Abhandlungen zum LXX Geburtstaff Konrad v.
Maurers, Gottmgen (1893), p. 236,

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 12.3

Informal as De Villis is, however, it has more of a
public character than the small treatise Be Sceadwisan
Gerefan,1 its nearest parallel in English. The gerefa of
this document occupies a position similar to that of the
index or major of De Villis. Directions are given for the
management of a great estate on the best lines. Dr.
Liebermann dates the document at about 1025, and
points out that it not only follows on in the same manu-
script with the Rectitudines Singularum Personarum, but
that it is complementary to it, being written with the
same object and scope and in a similar style. He con-
siders that the lord of the gerefa is probably not the
king, nor an ecclesiastic, but some great thegn holding
bookland from the king.

The similarity between the two documents consists
in the fact that they are both directions to the manager
of an economic unit with a view to the profit of his lord,
the owner of the estate in question. The differences
are, however, numerous, and are readily perceived.

Gerefa is mainly if not solely concerned with private
property. Though it is highly probable that the greater
part of the regulations it contains apply equally to royal
and to private estates, there is nothing to indicate that
the king is the lord for whose interests the gerefa is to
care. On the other hand, as we have seen, De Villis
deals solely with the property of the fisc.

The legislative character of De Villis again, though it
is far less formal than many of the capitularies, sets it on
a different footing from Gerefa, where the optative is
preferred to the imperative, and the personal note of the
writer is apparent.2 "It is difficult to say everything
which he must remember who holds the office. ... I
have set forth according as I could ; let him who can do
better declare it." 3

1 Liebermann, pp. 453 ff. 2 Gerefa, 4. " I teach," 3 Ibid., 18, 19.

124 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

The villa is evidently far more complicated than the
tun. A hierarchy of possibly four ranks is traceable :
the index, the major, the magister and the iuniores.1
There is no sign of any official below the gerefa, unless
his hyrmen have such a position.2 There are also
apparently more social grades in De Villis?

The powers of the index are considerably more extensive
than those of the gerefa. It is possible, indeed, that only
the larger villae have a index, and that the major is nor-
mally the chief official, for certain passages appear to
indicate that the index may have more than one vill
under his control.4 The index has control of the agri-
cultural and industrial 5 work of the vill. In this,
apparently, the gerefa is his equal ; there are no signs of
the interference of any other. In his case, however, the
limitation of old custom is added.6 The index is also
guided by command or custom,7 but within the vill
appears to be omnipotent. His rights are not merely
administrative ; he receives censa on behalf of the king ; 8
pays tithe from the vill, and keeps and renders full
account to the king.9

His judicial powers are also defined. He is commanded
to hold andientiae frequently,10 he receives freda for the
king,11 and he is commanded to keep peace and order.12
The ordinary officials of the country have no footing in
the vill. If a slave has to seek justice without,13 he is
supported by his magister. Theft and homicide are

1 De Villis, 10, 26, 29, 59, 60. 2 Gerefa, 6, 7.

3 Franci, 4. Fiscalini, 50. Servi, ingenui, 52. Servientes, 39. Centeni
(unfree), 62. Rect. Sing. Pers. mentions the gebur, the colsetla, the
ceorl and the theow ; and also cowherds, etc., who may be compared
with the falconarii, etc., of De Villis.

* De Villis, 5, 17, 24. 6 Gerefa, 16; De Villis, 45.

• Gerefa, 1. ' De Villis, 7.

» Ibid., 62. » Ibid., 6, 36, 55, 62.

Ibid., 56. " Ibid., 4, 62.

.t 53,

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 125

punishable within the vill,1 whilst, as we have seen,
this is not certain in the case of all immunities. Appeal
appears to lie directly to the king, to whom magister,
iuniores and servi, are all assured access.2

There is no certain evidence that the gerefa has any
judicial power. The statement that he is to know lord's
landright and folkright, as the wise men established it
of old, and that he is to rule every one through lord's
craft and folkright,3 may imply that his knowledge will
be used in deciding disputes and keeping peace and order.
On the other hand, it reads somewhat like a command
to keep by the old local traditions of agriculture, as time
has established them. It seems impossible to state with
certainty, as we can in the case of De Villis, that an
organized judicial tribunal is set up. It is probable
that summary justice at least would need to be within
the powers of an official whose duties were so extensive ;
it is also possible that the holder of the land in question
might have a freolsboc from the king.

While the count is not mentioned throughout De Villis,
it appears that the queen and the king exercise control
by means of special missi,4 and that the butler and senes-
chal have some power in the vill.5 The king's huntsmen
and foresters 6 also may hold councils in the vill, by
command of the king, probably dealing with the care of
the forest land of the neighbourhood. With the gerefa
there is no reference to outside control.

The officials of the vill are paid by benefices within
the vill 7 or without. Dr. Seeliger 8 suggests that the
benefice on the vill is no more than a mansus relieved
from the duty incumbent on the generality. Throughout
the capitulary the officials are urged not to neglect the

1 De Villii, 4. Cf. 53. 2 Ibid., 29, 57. 3 Gerefa, 1, 7.

4 De Villis, 16, 5. 5 Ibid., 47. • Ibid., 47.

7 Ibid., 10, 50. • Hist. Viertelj. (1907) p. 342.

126 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

royal interests for the sake of their own, or to turn to
their own use privileges and rights which belong of right
only to the king. There is no unequivocal sign of the
manner in which the gerefa is paid, but the reference
to his own land suggests that he also is paid in this
manner. " So shall a good official keep his lord's lands,
let him do what he will with his own." 1

The contrast between the aims and contents of the
two documents is thus clear. De Villis is intended as
a check on the growth of local independence, and an
assertion of royal rights. Gerefa has no political aims;
it is little more than an agricultural treatise. It is most
improbable that it owes anything to the older document.
Yet in spite of its non-political character it gives a picture
of a large estate that may apply to royal, ecclesiastical
or private lands. The value of the comparison depends
mainly on the relation in each country between royal
estates and those of other men. It appears probable, from
De Villis, that the royal lands were especially privileged,
whilst the reference quoted above, added to later develop-
ments, suggests that similar special privileges attached
to the royal demesne in England. There is no trace of
such special privilege in Gerefa. It seems, then, that
little is to be gained from the comparison of these two
documents, which in various details bear a close re-
semblance to each other, beyond the general similarity
of organization on great estates in Francia and England.

We are thus forced either to draw deductions from the
status of later Ancient Demesne, or else to class the lands
of the fisc as differing little from other immunities.
Domesday represents many of the royal vills as free from
geld, and it seems highly probable that at a much earlier

1 Gerefa, 5. Cf. De Villis, 63. " Omnia quicquid homo in domo
sua vel in villis suis habere debet, iudices nostri in villis nostris habere
debeant."

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 127

date they " already stood outside the national system
of taxation, justice and police," l that the ealdorman of
the shire and the shiremoot had no jurisdiction over them,
and that they were administered by reeves yet more
personally dependent on the king than was the shire reeve.
The king's booking of land to himself, of which we have
several records, is further evidence in favour of this
suggestion. The land so booked would be placed under
a special royal immunity. If we accept it, the analogy
between Frankish and English royal demesne is very
close, though at the same tune there is no evidence
whatever to suggest any other basis for the resemblance
than the common ownership of an original royal or
princely tradition.

1 D. B. and B. p. 277.

CHAPTER VI

THE CAROLINGIAN AND WEST SAXON MILITARY
SYSTEMS

1. The Carolingian Army.

In the Carolingian military system no less than in the
civil administration of the kingdom, the king is the
centre and moving spirit. The old conception of a
national right of military service, if it ever existed, has
died out; the service is now felt to be a duty, exacted
by the king and his servants from unwilling subjects.

(a) The Summons.

This altered conception is reflected hi the inconsistent
nature of the summons issued by the king. Men are
summoned to a general assembly which is also a national
military review; theoretically they are themselves the
choosers of peace and war; but they are commanded to
come bene praeparati — victualled, that is, for a three-
months' campaign, and with clothing for six months.1
Though the annals give evidence of debates on the ques-
tion of peace and war, these discussions are plainly
confined to the magnates ; the rank and file have no voice
in the matter. The campaigns have been in all probability
settled in the autumn council,2 and are only formally
discussed in the May field.

The summons might, however, be issued after the
general assembly. In one instance the counts, bishops
and abbots returning home from it are ordered to dis-
seminate the information in their own districts,3 though

1 804/11. 168. 2 Hincmar, De Ord. Pal. c. 30. • 805/8. 141.

128

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 129

in this case the command is only to be in a general state
of preparation for the actual summons when it shall
come " per missos aut per epistola." It is, it seems, the
missi dominici who are mainly responsible for spreading
the news,1 but the letter to Fulrad 2 is evidence that the
summons may be sent direct to a leader himself.3

This letter is probably a typical instance of the form
of a summons, naming the place and date of the placitum
exercitale. Some such summons is described in the Annals
for 829, when a false alarm causes Lewis to call out all
his forces at very short notice against the Danes.4

(b) The Obligation to Serve.

The question as to who should respond to this summons
has been much discussed by Waitz and Roth.5 The
majority of later opinions is in favour of Roth's view;
that obligation to serve was originally based on personal
freedom and not on land ownership. Underlying the whole
series of capitularies and deducible from the charters
and privileges, is the principle of a traditional universal
duty, not as stereotyped as the English Trinoda Necessitas
yet clearly of similar character.6 These duties, to which
we have had occasion to refer before, are those of watch
and ward, of scara — probably a kind of police service —
of bridge-building, fortification of cities and service in
the host 7 or on ships.8 The duty of fortification — the

1 808. 137-8. 2 804/11. 168. Cf. Bouquet, VI. 395. Ep. xxv.

3 This is due to the fact that Fulrad was an imnmnist, and was
therefore in immediate relation to the king, without the intervention
of the count. Kroell, p. 182.

• A. L. M. 829. 6 W&itz> Vol. IV; Roth, B.W. and F.U.

8 Note the striking consciousness of this evinced in the Edict of
Pistres. 864. II. 322, 27. " Juxta antiquam et aliarum gentium
consuetudinem ; " and cf. Miihlbacher, D. K. p. 132.

7 787 ? 197, 7; 800. 84, 16; 815. 261, 1 ; 801/13. 171, 9; 864. II. 322,
27 ; 850. II. 87, 8. From 811. 166, 2 it appears that the heriban might
be exacted for neglect of any of these duties — perhaps illegally.

8 802. 100, 13a refers to the preparation of ships on the sea coast.
811. 167, 11 commands the seniores to be ready to go in their ships if
the king make a sea expedition. Note the Annals for 791, 806, 817.

130 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

English burhbot — is rarely referred to in the capitularies.
In the Italian Capitulary of 866, the missi are instructed
to look to the keeping of wacta and also to the castella,
so that the people may take refuge in them.1 A capi-
tulary of 820 refers to Pippin's castella in Italy,2 whilst
the Capitulary of Quierzy refers to the castella then
building at Compiegne and along the Seine and the
Loire.3 The Annals of 806 and 809 also mention the
building of forts. These castella are the direct results
of invasions ; Charles's Saxon wars had been characterized
by the erection of forts such as Sigiburg and Eresburg,
but the use of them for home defence seems new. In
this connection an entry of the Annales Bertiniani for
869 is of interest, recalling, as it does, the forts of Henry
the Fowler and the burhs of Edward the Elder. " De
centum mansis unum haistaldum mitti praecepit . . .
quatenus ipsi haistaldi castellum quod ibidem . . . fieri
precepit excolerent et custodirent."

Of these general duties, however, the host duty is
pre-eminent and has developed a dual character. To the
defence of the country against invasion all men must
come out,4 free or unfree, without any excuse, though
even this duty tends to be specialized and one capitulary
exempts the very poorest from its performance.5 This
duty probably merges in that of watch and ward on the
marches 6 and on the seacoast.7 To this duty, as to
those of bridge-building and fortification, the count can
summon men on his own authority, without orders from

1 866, II. 95, 3. z 820. 296, 2.

3 877, II. 361, 27. « 847, II. 71, 6.

6 866, II. 95, 1. " Qui vero non plus quam decem solidos habet
de mobilibus, nil ei requiratur."

• 811. 166, 2 ; 815. 261, 1 ; 864, II. 322, 27. " Ad defensionem patriae
omnes sine ulla excusatione veniant."

7 821. 301, 5. Note Einh. Ep. 23. He represents that his men
who have performed coastguard duty ought of right to be exempt from
the host.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 131

above ; and the penalty for disobedience is not the heriban
but death.1 The emphasis on this duty is most marked
in the later capitularies, as the danger of invasion becomes
more imminent.

The duty of lantweri is, however, clearly distinguished
in the capitularies from that of expeditio or exercitus.
It is in connection with exterior warfare that the many
military capitularies of the Carolingian period are issued.
The new problems arising from the extension of the
Carolingian Empire call for new expedients; economy of
strength is demanded as well as efficiency. Boretius 2
has, however, pointed out the danger of insisting on the
novelty of that feature of Charles the Great's legislation
which connects the obligation of service with the owner-
ship of land. Similar restrictions had been operating in
the Lombard kingdom 3 for some fifty years, and Charles
can hardly be looked upon as a wholesale innovator in
this respect. The originally universal nature of the duty
is attested by the capitulary of 802, in which obedience
to the ostile bannum is included under the duties covered
by the oath of fealty which all free men over twelve years
of age must take.4 The expression omnes, which is very
frequently found in the military capitularies,5 is not to be
insisted on, as it may merely mean all who have certain
qualifications. It is clear, however, that all the regula-
tions of Charles and his successors are in the nature of
exemptions and indulgences from a service incumbent
on all free men.

In considering these regulations it is necessary to
remember Boretius's warning of their fleeting nature. It

1 822/3. 319, 18. If, however, the report of an invasion should
prove false, those who have failed to obey the summons pay the ordinary
legal penalty.

2 Beitrage zur Capitularien Kriiik, 1874.

3 M. 6. H. Leges, IV. p. 196. « 802. 93, 7.
s 792 or 786. 67, 6; 807. 125, 3; 805/8. 141, 3.

132 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

is possible that he over-emphasizes the transitory and
fragmentary character of the capitularies, especially of
the military ones ; but in some instances * the capitularies
themselves contain the qualifications of time or space :
" Haec autem constituta volumus ut observentur gene-
raliter praesenti anno." 2 Generalizations on the subject
are thus attended with danger, and the alterations must
be followed from year to year. As a chronological account
of this legislation has been given frequently,3 it will be
made as brief as possible here.

The first capitulary dealing with the matter that comes
down to us is attributed to 807. 4 Here the service has
a territorial basis. One man must go to the host from
divisions varying hi size from three to five mansi, the
proportion of service to land not being strictly observed.
Those who have no real property form groups, the size
of which is not specified, to send one man from each
group. They also contribute money to the landholders
who go to the host. All who have benefices must go.
In 808 5 the rule is more symmetrical and definite. From
every four mansi one man must go, this condition applying
to beneficiary and proprietary land alike.

Later regulations are less definite. The Capitular e
Olonnense of 825,6 which applies to the Italian kingdom,
classifies men as mediocres and pauperiores. The latter
owe neither service nor adiutorium ; the former are
formed into groups of two, three, four or more who send
a man. It is probable that this capitulary refers either
to the capitularies already mentioned or to some lost
capitulary.7 In 829 reference is again made to these

792 or 786. 67, 6 ; 807. 134. 2 807. 135, 3.

Boretius, 1874. Baldamus, 1879. Waitz, 1885. Prenzel, 1887.
Muhlbacher, 1896.

807. 134. Memoratorium de exercitu promovendo.

808. 137. Cap. Missorum de ezercitu promovendo.
825. 329. Similar regulations are found 825. 325.
Of. 805. 123, 6.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 133

groups.1 The count has control of them, but the missus
oversees them ; in this year he is ordered to send in a list
of those who owe service, indicating the formation of the
groups. This clause is re-enacted in 864.2 Boretius
considers it, in view of the state of the Frankish kingdoms,
at that date, to have been both an anachronism and a
dead letter.3

The Italian Capitulary of 866 4 sets a new scale — the
wergeld. Every man who owns his wergeld in movable
property must serve ; he who owns half his wergeld joins
with another in the like case, and so on.

Limitations relating to time and space are also found.
The ban does not fall everywhere at once ; those nearest
to the field of war have the heaviest burden. Against
the Avars or Spain one in six Saxons goes; against the
Bohemians one in three ; against the Sorbs all go. From
the Frisians all who have benefices and horses must go ;
of the poorer sort only one in seven.5 The ordinances
are distinctly local in their character; that of 807 refers
apparently only to those living west of the Seine.6

After the general limitations the more special exemp-
tions for individuals must be considered. In 808 the
count is allowed to leave behind four of his landholding
men — two to guard his home, two to fill his office.7 This
regulation appears to be still in force in 819,8 whilst in
866 he is allowed one for each county he holds and two
for his home.9 The bishops (in Italy) are allowed two
of their men who dwell without, and four who live
in their household.10 The two are probably advocati,
mentioned in another capitulary of the same year.
Lewis II, however, in his Beneventan Capitulary refuses
to exempt advocates.11

1 829, II. 19, 7. 2 864, II. 321, 27. 8 Boretius, p. 129.

* 866, II. 94, 1. s 807 ? 136> 3. « 807 134

7 808. 137, 4. 8 819. 291, 27. 9 866, II. 95, 1.

10 826. 325, 2. » 866, II. 95, 1.

134 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

Vassals of royal vassals who are at the palace are
exempt if they are with their lords,1 otherwise special
leave must be obtained from the king. In another
passage we learn that they must go with the count if
their lords are absent,2 whilst in yet another permission
to leave two men at home is granted to all lords, whether
royal vassals or not.3

In individual cases we find that one brother of a family
is allowed to stay at home ; one son is allowed to stay at
home with the father, whilst the more useful ones go to
war.4 A man who is physically unable may send a poor
substitute. The wolf -hunters — two in each vicaria — are
exempt.5

The clergy were forbidden by the capitularies no less
than by the canons to bear arms ; 6 but throughout the
period there is abundance of evidence that they go to
the host. The letter of summons we possess is addressed
to an abbot, and a capitulary of 744 countenances their
going.7 As Alcuin says, " Bellator spiritalis bellator
cogitur esse carnalis." 8 The Vita Sturmi and the
Epistles of Lupus give examples of the attendance of
bishops as well as abbots at the seat of war,9 whilst the
Italian Capitulary of 866 declares that the bishops must
go or give proof of serious ilhiess.

Individual exemptions for abbots are, however, found,
as a rule naming a substitute to perform the required
service;10 and even more common is the exemption of

1 808. 138, 9; 825. 325, 1. 2 811. 167, 7. 3 811. 167, 9.

4 825. 330, 6 ; 866. II. 95, 1. In Form. Pat. 3 we have an instance of
leave granted to an old man that his son may go to the host in his
stead.

6 801/13. 171, 8. • 789. 59, 70; 802. 107, 18; 803. 120, 8, etc.

7 744. 29, 3. " Et abbati legitimi ostem non faciant nisi tan turn
homines eorum transmittant.'1

« Ale. Ep. 2.

» Vita Slurmi. c. 24. Lupi Epp. 24, 25, 78; quoted Waitz, IV.
p. 593.
10 See instances quoted Prenzel, p. 85.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 135

all or some of the men of a monastery from military
service. At Farfa, for instance, " viginti homines cartulati
qui ad ipsum monasterium pertinent hoc anno ab omni
hostili expeditione securi et quieti remaneant quales ab
eodem abbati provisi fuerunt." l Lothar in 840 grants
to Murbach exemption from host service for five free
men. Again, exemption from heriban, such as is granted
to the king's foresters and to merchants in the king's
mund 2 is equivalent to exemption from military service.
The counts are rebuked for infringing these privileges,3
which grow more prevalent and more comprehensive
throughout the reign of Lewis the Pious.

Many, thus, have legitimate exemptions, but frequent
illegal attempts are made to escape from the burden of
service. Men take the tonsure, without renouncing the
world ; 4 they surrender their property to the Church 5
or represent the lands they hold as belonging to a clerk ; 6
they sell them to laymen ; 7 they refuse to leave their
lords if these are not summoned to the host.8 They

1 Quoted Waitz, IV. p. 591. Cf. other passages in the same note.

2 Form. Imp. 37. 43,

3 Bouquet, VI. 337. Lewis to Badurad of Paderborn, 824. " Cog-
novimus . . . quidam comites memoratum praeceptum nostrum
infringere et convellere volent, in eo . . . quod homines tarn liberos
quam et litos, qui super terrain eiusdem Monasterii consistunt, in
hostem ire compellant et distringere judiciario modo velint ; quod
nolumus ut faciant .... Illud praeceptum quod . . . fecimus, ad-
sumas, et in praesentia eorumdem comitum in quorum ministeriis res
praedicti monasterii esse noscuntur, relegi facias. . . ." The number
of monasteries that are exempt altogether from military service in
817 are 18 out of 48 in the northern part of the empire, 13 in Aqui-
taine, and 18 in Septimania. 817. 350.

4 799/800. 230, 44. ; 805. 125, 15. Monks and priests were apparently
still exempt, though bishops and abbots were not.

5 825. 330, 2. This passage indicates the extent to which the ecclesi-
astical immunity was held to involve exemption from military service.
Kroell, p. 187. Cf. Polypticon Irmin. III. 61. " Isti homines fuerunt
liberi et ingenui, sed quia militiam regis non valebant exercere, tradi-
derunt alodos suos Sancto Germane."

8 825. 330, 4. i 825. 331, 11 ; 825. 330. 3,

» 811. 165.8.

136 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

surrender their liberty, selling themselves into slavery.1
Brothers leave their inheritance undivided, so that one
may go in place of all.2 The counts, vicarii, and centenarii
are bribed to remit the penalty.3

This penalty, the heriban, may be exacted from the
offender himself,4 from his lord,5 or from the count or
iunior who connives at the evasion.6 The lawful heriban
is the king's ordinary ban of 60 shillings.7 As a rule this
is the amount exacted, but in 805 8 there is a graduated
scale for it according to the circumstances of the offender,
whilst in 825 a lesser punishment is appointed for the first
offence,9 the ban being inflicted on the second, and exile or
complete forfeiture on the third. Men were temporarily
enslaved, though only with the emperor's consent, for
failure to pay the heriban.10 Further, in the case of royal
vassals and beneficiaries the benefice is forfeit,11 and the
missus who condones the offence loses his possessions.12

The heriban is exacted by the missus, who is bound to
inquire into the cases where it is due.13 The count is
expressly forbidden to exact the heriban,14 though he
receives the third part of it and can exact security for
its payment.15 This appears somewhat to have damaged

I 825. 331, 10; 789/814. 185, 5. 2 825. 330, 6. 3 808. 138, 6.

« 811. 166, 1 ; 802. 101, 18, etc. 5 811. 167, 9. « 808. 137, 3, etc.
7 805. 125, 19 ; 801. 205, 2 ; 811. 166, 1 ; 818/9. 285, 18, etc.. Cf. also
Lex Rib. 63 (Codd. A.).
« 805. 125, 19. » 825. 329, 1. 10 811. 166, 1. ; 810. 153, 12.

II 811. 167, 5. " 866, II. 95, 3.

18 808. 137, 2; 810. 153, 12 ; 806. 131, 5, etc. Almost all the military
capitularies are addressed to missi. Note also Einh. Ep. 51. To a
missus ;" Homines nostri . . . so lent no bis nar rare . . . de benignitate
vestra erga nos, in eo quod homines nostros servatis et eis parcitis . . .
tarn in heribannis quam in aliis causis . . ." and also Ep. 42. It is
possible that even those immunists who have the right to collect the
heriban cannot evade the missus, since their immunity only guards
them against the count and his subordinates.

14 811. 166, 2; 781/810. 207, 13.

15 825. 330, 4. It is to the count, moreover, that the emperor
addresses exemptions of individuals from the heriban. Form. Imp.
43. Sen. 19. Sal. Merk. 41.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 137

his authority ; the people refuse to obey him and to fulfil
the emperor's command because they say they have to
answer for it to the missus and not to him.1 The count
and his underlings are also powerless to exact the con-
jectum,2 that is, either the payment made by those who
do not go to the host 3 or else the supplies provided by
the countryside for the contingent.4 Haribannatores are
appointed to receive the conjectum in 803. 5

Although the count cannot exact the heriban he is
viewed as responsible for the appearance of his pagenses*
He has to form the groups of men who join to send one
of their number to the host,7 though the missi supervise
the groups.8 The count's power in enforcing the per-
formance of host duty is indicated by the frequent
complaints of his abuse of that power. On the one hand
he oppresses poor free men till they surrender their
property and are unable to go, and the king's service
suffers ; 9 on the other hand he forces men who have
contributed their adiutorium to go to the host,10 takes
from men the weapons they have prepared,11 and forces
the same men to go to the host time after time till they
are beggared.12

The count is responsible not only for the presence, but
for the equipment, of the men. He is bound to see that
they are bene praeparati.™ We have seen that the missi
shared this responsibility; the centenarii and vicarii are

1 811.165,6. 2 801/14. 144,2.

3 Roth, B. W. 400 ; 807. 135, 2. " Et unicuique ex ipsis qui in hoste
pergunt fiant coniectati solidi quinque a suprascriptis."

* Note charter quoted by Waitz, IV. p. 622. " De omnibus redhibi-
tionibus quae ab hominibus ecclesiae recipiuntur excepto hostilense,
id est de bobus et coniecto ad carros construendos."

5 803. 115, 5. Cf. Exactor haribanni, Einh. Ep. 42, and 801-814. 144. 2.

9 802. 93, 7. 7 825. 325.

8 829, II. 7, 7; 829, II. 19, 7; 864, II. 321, 27.

9 802. 100, 12. 10 808. 138, 6. " 808. 137, 3. 12 811. 165, 3.
13 803/13. 171, 9; 807 ? 136, 3 ; 786. 67, 6.

138 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

also concerned.1 The character of this praeparatio,
though seemingly a matter of detail, has really consider-
able constitutional importance. It is not certain that
the obligation to come fully equipped formed a part of
the original host duty, though this may be inferred from
the reference to antiqua consuetude made in 8 II.2 How-
ever this may be, the increasing requirements made by
Charles the Great's capitularies were due to a number
of causes.

As has been frequently pointed out, the extension of
Frankish rule involved not only a far longer frontier to
defend, but also conflict with new enemies by contact
with whom existing military systems could not but be
modified. Brunner, in his study on " Der Reiterdienst
und die Anfange des Lehnwesens " 3 traces the change
in respect of the use of cavalry which took place in the
eighth and ninth centuries to the wars of Charles Martel
with the Saracens in Aquitaine. He shows that cavalry
warfare was the exception in 732 and the rule in 89 1,4
and traces the development throughout the period. The
importance of his conclusions lies in the increased re-
quirements made by the cavalry system from those
who come to the host. Not only horses, but heavier
armour had to be contributed by the warriors ; thus we
find stringent regulations concerning the byrnies, which
are not to be sold out of the country, nor stored up
unused,5 nor lost by those to whom they are entrusted,6
and are to be furnished by every holder of twelve mansi.1
But it is the requirement of cavalry that most directly
influenced the development of institutions.

1 808. 138, 7; 808. 137, 3; 811. 165, 2. It is possible that the cen-
tenarius assembles the men of the centena and leads them to the
military assembly of the pagus. Viollet, I. p. 299.

2 811. 167, 8. 3 1887. Reprinted in Forschungen.
* Forschungen, pp. 40, 51.

5 779. 51, 20 ; 811. 167, 10. • 800 ? 87, 42.

7 805. 123, 6. Also the men of the count, 801/13. 171, 9.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 139

From the description of those who take the oath of
fealty in 786 or 792 we infer that all vassals — all, at any
rate, who hold benefices — have a horse as well as light
armour.1 In 807 it appears that all Frisians except the
very poor have horses.2 In the letter to Fulrad his men
are referred to as caballarii,3 whilst in 828 it is enacted
that all who come to the host must have horses.4 The
Edictum Pistense of 864, however, expressly mentions
the pagenses who ought to follow the count on horses
as if they had not before had such an obligation.5 In
this same capitulary the heinous nature of the sale of
horses or armour to invaders is emphasized : " Qui-
cumque . . . Nortmannis . . . bruniam vel quaecumque
arma aut caballum donaverit, sicut proditor patriae et
expositor christianitatis ad perditionem gentilitati sine
ulla retractione . . . de vita componat." 6

Thus the distribution of liability among several indi-
viduals, and the proportioning of it to the land held by
them is traceable largely to the increased requirements
of military equipment. On the other hand, the immense
development of the beneficiary system under Charles
Martel, Pippin and Charles the Great, is attributable
to the same cause — the need of cavalry ; originally against
the Saracens rather than the Northmen, who borrowed
the use of horses from the Franks themselves.7 As we
have seen, the obligation of furnishing riders appears

1 " Deinde . . . cunctas generalitas populi . . . qui ad placita
venissent et iussionem adimplere seniorum et conservare possunt, sive
pagenses sive episcoporum et abbatis suarum vel comitum homines,
fiscilini quoque atque servi, qui honorati beneficia et ministeria tenent
vel in bassalatico honorati sunt cum dornini sui et caballos, arma et
scuto et lancea, spata et senespasio habere possunt; omnes iurent."
786 or 792. 67, 4.

2 807 ? 136, 3.

3 804/11. 168. Mr. Oman's emendation (Art of War, p. 82) is un-
necessary and misleading.

4 828, II. 5, A. 5 864, II. 321, 26. • 864, II. 321, 25.
i Miracula S. Benedicti, M. 0. H. SS. XV. p. 494.

140 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

to have been incumbent on the benefice from the first,1
and the natural method of strengthening the Frankish
army was thus the granting out of lands to be held by
such a tenure.

Food and clothing, as has been said, were supplied by
the men ; 2 whilst the count provides fodder, tools for
siege or camp use,3 and carts,4 which are probably exacted
by him from the countryside. Further supplies are
furnished by the crown vassals,5 the royal vills,6 and
the monasteries.7

(d) The Leaders.

So far the army has been considered from the count's
point of view, but the responsibilities of the senior are
parallel with those of the count in the matter of equipment
and control, whilst Fulrad's letter illustrates the inde-
pendent position of the immunist. The senior, no less
than the count, is bound to see that his men are present
at the set place and time and are well equipped ; 8 the
senior, no less than the count, pays the heriban and forfeits
his benefice 9 for conniving at an evasion. He likewise
leads his men to war, as the count leads the pagenses,10
and it is only in his absence that they march with the
other men of the county.11 In Fulrad's summons the
second rank of vassals is mentioned; the vassals of the
abbot go under his command, but each with his own
men, for the better preservation of order. The senior
has a definite official position in the army, and it is not

1 743. 28, 2. Cf. Hincmar's letter, 858. II. 432. " De quibus conse-
cratis Deo rebus . . . ideo constituerunt apostolorum successores, hoc
ordinari, ut . . . augeretur per dispensationem ecclesiasticum regni
militia." Note also the riding service of 810. 252, 8.

2 804/11. 168; 811. 167, 8; cf. 866, II. 96, 6. 3 801/13. 171, 9, 10.
4 801/13. 171, 10. 8 807. 135, 3. « 800 ? 85, 30 ; 800 T 89, 64.
7 810. 250, 1 ; 810. 252, 8. » 811. 167, 9 ; 810. 252, 8. • 811. 167, 5.

10 808. 137, 1 ; 811. 167, 9; 811. 165, 8. The missus selects from the
crown vassals in each county the one most fitted to lead the different
troops of men under the command of their seniores. 807. 135, 3.

11 808. 137, 1.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 141

difficult to foresee that he will supersede the count in
the future, as the seignorial and beneficiary relationship
comes to dominate society.

On the march to the placitum the counts or the seniores
are the leaders; in our records of the wars themselves
the larger organization by nations rather than by counties
is alone traceable.1 Frequent reference is made in the
Annales to scarae, or troops, by which most probably
these national contingents are intended. The scar a
francisca has the place of honour. The " missi qui super
exercitum nostrum constituendi sunt " referred to in
80S,2 seem to have some superior command. The missi
who lead the army hi Saxony in 782 3 are a count of the
palace, a count of the stable, and a camerarius ; 4 whilst
the king's sons and grandsons,5 dukes,6 counts of the
march 7 and other counts,8 figure as generals in the
Annals.

The capitularies contain various detailed rules 9 of
discipline, the most important of which is the infliction
of the death penalty for the well-known crime of herisliz,
or desertion.10

Thus by the end of the Carolingian period the Frankish
army is well on its way to become a feudal army. The
count with all his military powers and duties is being
superseded by the senior as a leader; the universal
obligation is being narrowed down so that it lies on the
holders of benefices only and their men; and special

1 Flach, III. p. 470. " L'armee presenta 1'aspect d'une federation
placee sous 1'hegemonie, sous ... la suprematie du groupe ethnique
des Francs."

2 808. 138, 8. 3 A. L. M. 782. * A. Q. D. E. 782.
5 Ann. 784, 794, 796, 797, 800, 805, 806, 808, 812, 824, 827.

• Ann. 796, 819, 827. 7 Ibid., 799, 822, 827.

» A. Q. D. E. 782, 799. Seneschal, 786.

9 804/11. 168 ; 823/5. 305, 17 ; 768. 43, 6 ; 866, II. 96, 6, 8 ; 811. 166, 3.

10 811. 166, 4. Note Tassilo's case ; also one referred to in Miihlbacher,
D.K. p. 251. A man has forfeited his lands because of bis desertion
of the younger Pippin ; he is now pardoned and reinstated.

142 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

exemptions, granted right and left by royal weakness,
are destroying the last vestiges of the old tradition of
a national army.

2. The West Saxon Army.

In comparing these two systems, due allowance must
be made for the different problems that faced the Prankish
and English rulers. The warfare of Charles the Great
and Lewis the Pious was mainly though not solely
aggressive in character. Punitive expeditions in con-
sequence of frontier troubles occupy the greater part of
the time, and though the invasions are a menace at the
end of Charles's reign, and a national danger by the end
of Lewis's, they are hardly as yet a standing plague. The
English wars of the ninth century are a struggle for
self-preservation. Again, the highly centralized organiza-
tion of Charles does not appear to have much in common
with the methods of Alfred and Edward, whose warfare
seems rather to resemble that of their Frankish contem-
poraries, characterized as it is to a great extent by purely
local effort. Yet in the ninth century we see on one
side of the Channel kings losing control of the national
forces, allowing each part of the realm to face its own
difficulties unaided, leaving the post of danger to make
a family compact or settle a family grudge ; whilst on
the other, the kings are found rising to greater power
by controlling existing resources for defence and re-shaping
them to more effective use. The true parallel to Charles
the Bald's Francia is not the England of Edward, but
the England of JSthelred II ; and, allowing for the different
scale of operations and in spite of different conditions,
there are some elements common to the military systems
of Charles the Great and of Alfred.

It is, indeed, largely because the West Saxon kings
take the initiative and modify the existing system for
their own purposes that we might expect to find traces

143

of exterior influence. As to the fact that some definite
innovation or reform in military matters took place under
Alfred, all writers seem to be agreed, but as to its precise
nature, certainty seems unattainable. Here again the
materials are scanty and lamentably fragmentary. The
greater part of our information on the English army is
derived from the contemporary accounts of the wars with
the Northmen given in the Chronicle ; but the laws give
some particulars, and inferences may be drawn from some
of the Domesday entries, though with no chance of
chronological definiteness.

(a) The Summons.

Thus there is no clear indication of the method pursued
in calling together the fyrd. The Chronicle for 905 says,
" Then King Edward went after them as speedily as he
could gather the fyrd." In the exceptional year 898
Alfred goes against the Northmen, "with that portion of
the men of Somerset that was nearest." From the
account of the years 860-878 it may be gathered that
there was no standing on ceremony in these things. It
is most probable that the ealdormen who appear so con-
stantly with the men of the shire called out the fyrd, each
by his own authority when needed. This would be
strictly in accordance with the Frankish custom of allow-
ing the count to summon the forces of the pagus for home
defence without royal commands. In cases where the
whole force of the West Saxons goes out against an
external enemy,1 we might safely hold that a more formal
summons was issued on the part of the king.2

(b) Obligation to Serve.

The question next arises, as in Francia, who were bound
to obey the summons ? Nowhere, any more than in the

1 Chron. 823, 827, 828, 853, 911, etc.

2 Cf. V. Atr. 28, where a heavier penalty is assigned for desertion of
the fyrd if the king himself is there.

144 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

Frankish records, is there to be found a general statement
of military obligation. From Ine 51 it appears that the
duty of attendance at the fyrd was incumbent in Ine's
time on the gesithcund man, with or without land, and on
the ceorl. Throughout the pre-Conquest period we find
references to the Trinoda Necessitas in a series of charters
running from 767 to 1066.1 All but the very earliest
examples are West Saxon. In each case land is freed
from every public burden but the three — ' ' arcis et pontis
constructio et expeditio." These three duties are also
found in juxtaposition in the Laws,2 but only in those of
late date. In one instance scypfyrdung 3 is added to the
three.

Thus it would seem that in England as in Francia the
duty of military service forms part of those prime public
duties which are incumbent on every man, at any rate in
the earliest times of Wessex. The ceorl of Ine 51 is not
qualified as landowning or otherwise ; it is hardly too
much to infer from this passage the duty of every freeman.
We have noted before that there is only one instance in
the charters of total exemption from fyrd fcereldf whilst
in Francia total or partial exemptions are far more
common, and only two of the diplomas expressly reserve
the duty in a formula parallel to that of the English land-
books.

In all passages later than Ine's laws (which, it must be
remembered, in all probability operated under Alfred)
the relation of land to service is apparent. It is the land
on which the Trinoda Necessitas lies ; the thegn of Recti-

1 B. 201, 357, 427, 447, 475, 476, etc.; K. 651, 729.

a V. Atr. 26, 1 ; VI. Atr. 32, 3 ; II. Cn. 10 ; II. Cn. 65.

8 VI. Atr. 32, 3. As in Francia, naval service is included under the

universal duty. Naval battles are recorded in the Chronicle, 833-885.

! Alfred's naval force is described as the sciphere, and in 911 Edward has

'< 100 ships. The importance of ships is brought out very strongly in

; .Ethelred's legislation. V. Atr. 27 ; VI. Atr. 32, 3 ; Chron. 1008.

• See above, Chapter V, p. 119.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 145

tudines Singularum Personanim owes service from his
land,1 whilst, though the older interpretation of utware
must now be abandoned,2 it appears that some special
services were owed from the land , and riding service among
them,3 and, as Maitland has suggested,4 this is three parts
of the way to military service. The Northleoda laga 5 again
represents the thegn's privileges, and, we may presume,
the thegn's duties, as attached to five hides of land.

Unfortunately, these references are mainly taken from
f ragmentary documents of a late or doubtful date ;
documents which record rather customs than enact-
ments.6 The evidence of Domesday is even more
disjointed and more doubtful in date, lacking as it is
in means for estimating the antiquity of the customs it
records. It has been shown, however, that the five-hide
unit runs through Domesday,7 and that it is a basis for
military service.8

The entry for 894 in the Chronicle leads us to attribute
considerable military innovations to Alfred's reign. The
two chief novelties recorded there are the exemption of
half the f3^rd at a time from service, and the erection and
garrisoning of burhs. Another indication given by the
Chronicle is the frequent mention of king's thegns at
this period as fighting and falling in the wars.9 Again,

1 Rect. 1.

2 Round, F. E. p. 117 ; Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, pp. 239, 284.

3 GebincSo, 2, 3. « D. B. and B. p. 307. « NorSleod. 9, 10.

6 Note GeJnnciSo, 1 ; " Hit waes hwilum on Engla lagum."

7 Round, Feudal England.

8 Wilton either pays 20 shillings or sends one man for five hides. Dd.
I. 64b. Exeter is rated at five hides for expedition by land or sea. Dd.
I. 100. In Wiltshire three men held four hides; two of them render
five shillings and the third serves sic tainus. Dd. I. 67b. The
Berkshire Domesday gives the classical instance of one soldier going
from every four hides. Dd. I. 56b. Though it must be remembered,
especially in the case of the boroughs, that the Domesday hide is a fiscal
rather than a territorial unit, the territorial basis of such a scheme of
assessment is unmistakable.

• Chron. 871, 874, 897, 905, 917.
L

146 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

there is Asser's reference to the service rendered by
Alfred's satellites.1 Taking these facts in conjunction
with the later passages in Domesday and elsewhere, it
seems a working hypothesis that Alfred availed himself
of the territorializing tendency of the king's thegn to
serve the needs of the country, and obliged all who owned
a certain number of hides to perform a special duty,
granting to all who owned that number a special privilege.
It has been suggested that the special duty in the king's
hall performed by the satellites was connected with the
duty of keeping the burhs, as the king moved about from
place to place, having no fixed court, and Asser refers to
the construction of new aulae 2 which have been identified
with the burhs.

If it could be proved that this direct proportion between
land and service was established by a single legislative
act, the question of conscious imitation or adaptation from
Frankish systems would arise with some urgency. To
quote Malt land : " It may well be doubted whether the
five-hide rule had not been borrowed by English kings
from their Frankish neighbours." 3 We have seen, how-
ever, that Charles the Great was not the originator of the
plan of proportioning service to land held. We have also
seen that there is no great likelihood of the establishment
of a fixed proportion between land and service under the
Carolingians. The unit varied from two to five mansi in
two years, and statistics for other years are not given.
Professor Vinogradoff has pointed out the discrepancy
in size between units of three mansi and five hides,
though he offers explanations for it.4 Again, other bases

1 Asser. c. 100 : " In tribus namque cohortibus praefati regia satellites
prudentissimi dividebantur, ita ut prima cohors in curto regio . . .
commoraretur, menseque finite et adveniente alia cohorte, prima domuui
redibat."

2 Asser c. 91. 8 D. B. and B. p. 161 (footnote).
4 Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. 34.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 147

of calculation are found in Francia, such as personal
property, and the distance of the country from the field
of war. It is contended, however, that the underlying
principle is the same in the two countries. On the other
hand, it must be remembered that the five -hide unit is
found as early as the laws of Ine as a standard for the
wergeld, and for the value of an oath.1 Alfred's con-
jectural innovation may have been no more than the
application of this unit to military purposes.

We find the parallel, however, not only hi the selection
of the soldiers, but even, in one Domesday entry,2 hi
the contributions made by those who do not go ; and in
the furnishing of armour from every eight hides in 1008 3
we are reminded of the regulations of 805. Nevertheless,
there seems on the whole no positive evidence to justify
a theory of conscious imitation; we can go no further
than Stubbs,4 hardly as far as Maitland.

Again, even though the relation of land to military
service be traced back to the days of Alfred, it is impossible
to believe that the fyrd whose movements are recorded
in the Chronicle consisted only of king's thegns.5 Here

1 Mr. Chadwick has pointed out the apparent existence of a six-
hide unit for military purposes as early as 800 in Mercia. The Origin
of the English Nation, p. 158. B. 201.

2 Dd. I. 67b. 3 Chron. 1008.

* " A strong current of similar events will produce coincidences in
the history of nations whose whole institutions are distinct ; much more
will like circumstances force similarly constituted nations into like
expedients ; nay, great legislators will think together even if the wants
that suggest the thought be of the most dissimilar character. No
amount of analogy between two systems can by itself prove the actual
derivation of one from the other." Stubbs, Constitutional History,
Vol. I. (6th ed.) p. 226. Note also Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the
Eleventh Cent. p. 30 : " The same reasons' which produced the Lombard
Assize of Arms, and the graduated service of Charlemagne's armies,
secured the transformation of the fyrd from a general force of free
tribesmen into an array of specially selected warriors."

8 Compare the Alfredian version of Bede, where the f oldie man on the
fyrd is contrasted with the king's thegns, (Latin : rusticus. milites).
Bede, H. E. IV. 22.
L 2

148 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

the Frankish law that all must appear in defence of their
country is recalled.1 The force that meets the Northmen
under the lead of the ealdorman consists of all the men of
the shire. Quite apart from any five-hide rule or official
exemption, it is probable that a gradual process of
specialization had been going on, and that " the forces
of the shire " meant, in its widest sense, " an array not of
the whole able-bodied population, but of representatives
of all the householders of the county." 2 On two
occasions a distinction appears to be made. In 865 the
people of Kent promise money for a peace. This may be
explained as a transaction of the people without the lead
of their ealdorman, who, as we have seen, probably called
them out to war. In 914 the country folk about Leighton
fight against a troop of Northmen and put them to flight.
Here we have apparently the rising of a smaller local unit
than the shire.

We have already referred to the general exemption of
894 by which half the members of the fyrd were freed
from expeditionary service, whether for home defence or
for gathering hi the harvest. But the process of granting
official exemptions was going on, as in Francia, though
probably not to so great an extent. The evidence is,
however, for the most part of a late date. In the Mercian
charter of 767 referred to above it appears that five men
only need be sent from the lands in question.3 The best
examples, however, are not found till Domesday Book.
Here the boroughs compound for their due service with
twenty, twelve, or ten men,4 and there are signs of
" beneficial hidation." Though exemptions from fyrd fare

1 It seems quite possible that in Wessex also a distinction is drawn
between " expeditio " and " lantweri." Cf. J. H. Clapham in E. H. R.
(1910), p. 293, and note the two fyrdwites of Domesday Book.
Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. p. 111.

2 Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. pp. 26, 34.

» B 201, « Dd. I. 154 ; I. 230 ; I. 238.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 149

are hardly to be found in early charters, one of Edward
the Confessor's records the granting of fyrdwite to Ramsey
Abbey,1 and the laws of Cnut refer to such concessions.2
If the power to exact the fyrdwite is surrendered, exemp-
tion from the fyrd is practically conceded.3

This penalty is 120 shillings and the forfeiture of land
for the gesithcund man who owns land; 60 shillings for
the gesithcund man without land, and 3 shillings for the
churlish man.4 There is no legislation on the subject
between the times of Ine and Cnut, where the same
penalty is found. For neglect of the Trinoda Necessitas
a man must pay 120 shillings in the English law and
according to old custom hi the Dane law. The fyrdwite
goes to the king and to no other unless he will concede
it to any man.5

Our chief material for the organization of the fyrd is
again to be found in the Chronicle. It almost always
assembles by shires. In the years 800, 837, 845, and 905
we find the men of the shire mentioned as a military
detachment, whilst the word is found by itself hi 894.6
As a rule it is the ealdorman who leads, though in the
case of a more general effort it is the king. In 823 Egbert
sends his sons, a bishop and an ealdorman against Kent.
In 827-828 he leads troops against the Northumbrians
and the North Welsh, whilst in 905 Edward not only
gathers the fyrd and leads the expedition, but he disbands
it and leaves the men of Kent, who refuse to obey, to be
surrounded and cut up by the Danes.

1 K. 853. 2 II. Cn. 12, 15.

3 The heriban similarly is granted in Francia. Charter for Priim.
(775) : " Ut nullum heribannum . . . solvere non debeat, sed ad ipsum
sanctum locum sit concessum atque indultum." Miihlbacher, D. K.
p. 153.

4 Ine 51. • II. Cn. 12, 15.
' " Se cyng mid |>aere scire >e mid him fierdedon.'2

150

We have already referred to the entry of 894, and sug-
gested that it has bearing on a general levy under the
king rather than a local rising for home defence. Another
reference to this system is found under 921 : " And when
that fierdstemn went home, then went another out and
reduced the burn." It is possible that in executing the
king's command the ealdorman decides whose turn it is
to serve and whose to remain, as the count does in Frank-
land, but there is no evidence for this.

Burhbot is the second item of the Trinoda Necessitas,
and there is frequent mention in the Chronicle of the
burhs whose erection forms a conspicuous part of Alfred's
policy. From 894 on we hear constantly of " the men
that held the burhs." In 886 Lundenburh had been
committed to the keeping of an ealdorman, and in 894
the burgware of London help hi the fight against the
Northmen. Every burn east of the Parret contributes
its assistance in pursuing the army in that year. In 896
the men of London again capture some ships. In 910
begins the account of the burn building of Edward and
^Ethelflaed, in which some twenty-five burhs are mentioned
by name. The shire is not so frequently mentioned now
as the fighting unit. In 905 the men of Hereford and
Gloucester and the nearest burhs oppose the Danes on
the Severn; in 921 "a great body of people from the
nearest burhs, who could then go," take Tempsford, and
later another force from Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, every-
where from the nearest burhs, take Colchester. These
entries appear to indicate a substitution of the burh for
the shire as a militaryj'unit,1 which may be attributed to
the altered conditions of warfare with the Danes. Offen-
sive are replacing defensive operations; siege warfare is
superseding pitched battles. A somewhat similar develop-
ment is traceable on the Continent, as we have seen from
1 Compare Mr. Chad wick's theory of the burghal system.

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 151

the passages that deal with the erection of castella. It is
conceivable also, that the burhs and the castella might
rest on a similar basis of contributory land holdings.
Similar military tactics, however, might well be suggested
by the attacks of the same enemies.

(d) The Leaders.

The leaders of the fyrd, as has been shown, are the
ealdorman, the aethelings and the king. An ealdorman
was in command at London, and in 906 there is mention
of the death of a gerefa at Bath.1 The leadership of the
men of the burhs is thus doubtful. No other military
divisions than the shire are mentioned ; the king's thegns
are not described as having any special command. It
is probably at a later date that the seignorial leadership
of military bodies begins. At Maldon the ealdorman
has his own following, and there is the right feudal ring
in the account of their relations with him. But he is
leading other forces of the shire, and though his household
troops owe him an especial loyalty, the question of trans-
ferred responsibility hardly arises. In Domesday, how-
ever, there are some few instances of this. In Worcester-
shire a man pays 40 shillings to his lord if he neglect the
expeditio, but he is in the king's mercy if he have his own
sake and soke.2 A member of vills owe to Taunton
" profectio in exercitum cum hominibus episcopi." 3
The analogy here evidently forms part of the larger
parallelism of seignorial institutions which has already
been discussed.

1 The gerefa may conceivably have some military functions, though
there is no trace of them in the records beyond this passage and the
references to the problematic high reeves of Northumbria. When the
sheriff at a later date acquires military functions it is as the ealdorman's
substitute.

2 Dd. I. 172.

3 Dd. I. 87b. Note also the four men who owe expeditio et navigia
to the Bishop of Worcester, Dd. I. 173 ; the service owed by Hamtone,
Heniing Cart. i. 77.

152 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN

(e) Cavalry.

The question of the use of cavalry is of less importance
here than in Francia. The evidence of the Chronicle is
on the whole in favour of Mr. Beck's 1 opinion that the
fyrd of the ninth century was a mounted force, though
it probably fought on foot.2 The reference to the horses
in the ealdorman ^Ethelwold's will,3 as well as the riding
duty of the thegn and of the radmanni of the West Mid-
lands is also in favour of this theory. On the other hand,
it seems very difficult to determine whether the use of
cavalry was an Alfredian innovation. If so, it is traceable
indirectly to Frankish influence, since, as we have seen,
the Northmen learnt the use of horses from the Franks,
and it was to cope with the attacks of the Northmen that
any innovations on Alfred's part were introduced. But
it has also been suggested 4 that the invaders learnt the
use of horses from the native English, who certainly
possessed horses in large numbers.

Beyond this it does not seem probable that the English
system was influenced by the Carolingian system. The
positions of the ealdorman and the count are hi all likeli-

1 E. H. R. (1906) p. 766.

2 The verb ridan is used of the fyrd as a whole in 894 and 896, and in
894 there is a reference to the horses' eating up of the corn round the
Danish fortifications. Ridan is used of individuals, kings, ealdonnen
and thegns in 787, 800, 871, 878, 901. The riding of the Danish here
is mentioned in 870, 871, 878, 917 ; their getting of horses 866, 876, 881,
885, 892. The usual verb of motion for the fyrd is the colourless faran.
At Maldon the warriors dismount from their horses and fight on foot,
but only the thegns may be meant. In 1055 the Chronicle appears to
attribute the defeat of the English by the Welsh to their use of horses.
Flor. Wig. " contra morem in equis pugnare iussit." Mr. Clapham,
however, explains this as meaning that the rout was so speedy that the
warriors had not even dismounted in order to fight before they were put
to flight. Fighting on horseback was not known here till 1066. E. H. R.
(1910) pp. 287 ff.

» K. 1173 (A. D. 955?).

4 Chad wick, Originof the English Nation, pp. 158 ff. And note Eddius,
Vita Wilfredi, c. xix. " Rex EcgfrithuB . . . statim equitatui exercitu
praeparato." Historians of Church of York, p. 30. (Rolls Series.)

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 153

hood traceable in each case to a military origin; their
functions are naturally similar, and the assistance, if any,
given by the gerefa or centenarius is also readily ex-
plicable. The shire system is perhaps more essential to
the effectiveness of the army in England than is the pagus
organization in Francia. Its value is revealed by the
despairing entry of ^Ethelred's Chronicle no less than by
the records of Alfred's reign. " At last there was not
a chief man who could gather a force, but each fled as he
might, nor even at last would any shire assist another." l
The special incidence of the duty on land, as we have
seen, is not sufficient evidence of imitation on the part
of the English kings. The erection of burhs, the great
strategical innovation of Edward and Alfred, is very
evidently directly suggested by the emergency, and is
fully explicable on that ground alone ; nevertheless, it is
quite possible that the experience of the Frankish kings
may have been applied by Alfred,2 since, as the Chronicle
shows,3 he kept close touch with the efforts of his neigh-
bours across the Channel against their common enemy.

1 Chron. 1010.

* It has been suggested that the building of fortified bridges recorded
by the Chronicle in 896 was a measure copied from Charles the Bald's
in 862 (Ann. Bert.).

• Chron. 880-893.

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

THE local institutions of the Carolingian Empire and
the West Saxon Kingdom having been examined and
compared step by step, the original question can be con-
sidered as a whole. Do the sources indicate the direct
indebtedness of one country to the other ? Did the West
Saxon kings borrow the policy or the institutions of the
Carolingians ? The answer has been anticipated in the
preceding pages, but a summary of the results may be
attempted here.

It was shown at the outset that there is evidence,
sufficient if fragmentary, of a close and constant com-
munication between the two countries from the eighth to
the tenth centuries, and that there was thus nothing to
make such a course of imitation or adaptation impossible.
It was noted at the same time that the Church was the
main channel of communication, and this in itself is in
favour of a close constitutional connection. There was a
constant give and take of canons and penitentials, pastors
and masters, between the two countries. To quote
Stubbs : " It would be very rash to affirm that while the
bishops who composed so large a part of the witenagemot
sought foreign models for their canons, they did not seek
foreign models for their secular laws." 1

Such an affirmation is not made here. A possibility,
however, does not make a probability. Positive evidence

1 Stubbs, Constitutional History, Vol. I. p. 224 (6th ed.).
154

FRANCIA AND ENGLAND 155

is needed, and this is almost completely lacking. There
are exceptions; as we have indicated, at least one
institution suggests almost irresistibly a foreign origin —
the laen. When the evidence has been considered it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that this particular form
of land-grant came from Francia. But, as with the land-
book itself, the precarium once on English soil assumes
an individuality of its own. Introduced before the
Carolingian period, it shows no trace of later foreign
influence, unless, as we have pointed out, that of
terminology in one or two instances.

The evidence for the development of the English
immunity from a Frankish origin is more dubious. Again
the almost complete lack of terminological evidence is
striking. The borrowing, if such there were, must have
taken place at an early period, and the probabilities again
seem against any later indebtedness of England to
Francia.

When these semi-ecclesiastical institutions have been
considered, the positive evidence — which is, in fact, barely
more than the use of a few technical terms, that may be
as purely literary as Asser's paga for shire — has been
exhausted, and there remains merely a series of close
analogies. Close as these are, however, not one of them
suggests a direct translation from one language to the
other. Alfred, of all compilers the most eager to give
honour where honour was due, makes no reference to the
capitularies of his transmarine neighbours in his preface
to the laws. In no document is there any direct refer-
ence to such a relation between the institutions of the
two countries as may be suggested by the frequent
resemblances we have noted.

Such resemblances would of themselves be valuable,
though not conclusive, but for the common origin of the
institutions of the two countries. Resemblances, and

156 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

close resemblances, are not confined to the English and
Frankish nations : striking analogies are to be found in
all the Germanic codes and records. This common
ancestry of institution is sufficient to explain much, if
not all, of the parallels that have been noticed.

To turn from detail to the general type, it is noticeable
that whilst under the Carolingians Frankish law is so
closely intertwined with Roman tradition and form as to
be forced to stand or fall by it, Anglo-Saxon law has been
described as "an especially pure type of Germanic
archaism." 1 The few distinctively foreign introductions
that have been mentioned are stamped by their Roman
origin, in spite of the special development they take on
English soil. Any foreign innovation might be expected
to leave a more distinctive trace than is to be found.
The traces of Danish influence, though without the
unmistakable Roman tinge of Carolingian institutions,
are immediately noticeable.2

This argument must be taken for what it is worth. It
is purely negative in character, as are, in fact, the whole
results of the investigation here attempted. To quote
Stubbs again : " Although we may be inclined to claim
for the institutions which came to full growth on English
soil a native or at least a common Germanic origin, it is
wiser and safer to allow the coincidences to speak for
themselves." 3 Thus, in reply to the original question :
Did the West Saxon kings borrow from the Carolingian
emperors ? we can only reply that it is possible but hardly
probable.

1 P.andM. I. p. 22.

2 See Vinofrradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Cent. pp. 4 ff.

3 Stubbs, Constitutional History, I. p. 226 (6th ed.).

PrinUd for th» UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PBXH, Ltd., by RICHARD CLAT & SONS, Ltd.,
London and Bungay.

Date Due

PRINTED IN U.S.A.

CAT. NO. 24 161 (**f

000 490 529 5

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Local government in Francia and England: a comparison of the local administration and jurisdiction of the Carolingian empire with that of the West Saxon kingdom"

See other formats