ciations. If any man with a predatory band should slay a man of the valuation of twelve hundred shillings, the homicide was ordered to pay both his were and the wite, and every one of the band was fined thirty shillings for being in such an association. If the guilty individual were not avowed, the whole band were ordered to be accused, and to pay equally the were and the wite.s The Anglo-Saxons followed the dictates of reason in punishing in homicide those whom we now call accessories before the fact. Thus, if any one lent his weapons to another to kill with them, both were made responsible for the were. If they did not choose to pay it in conjunction, the accessory was charged with onethird of the were and the wite. A pecuniary fine was imposed on the master of a mischievous dog." Excusable homicide was not allowed to be done with impunity. If a man so carried a spear as that it should destroy any individual, he was made amenable for the were, but excused from the wite." Thus stood the laws concerning murder, up to the days of Alfred. The compact between his son Edward and Guthrun made a careful provision for the punctual payment of the were. The homicide was required to produce for this purpose the security of eight paternal and four maternal relations.w In the reign of Edmund, an important improvement took place. The legal severity against murder was increased on the head of the offending individual; but his kindred were guarded from the revenge of the family of the deceased. If the full were was not discharged within twelve months, the relations of the criminal were exempted from hostility, but on the condition that they afforded him neither food nor protection. If any supported him, he became what would now be termed an accessory after the fact; he forfeited to the king all his property, and was also exposed to the enmity of the relations of the deceased. The king also forbade any wite or homicide to be remitted. And whoever revenged a homicide on any other than the criminal, was declared the enemy of the king and his own friend, and forfeited his possessions. The reason alleged by the sovereign for these and his other provisions was, that he was weary of the unjust and manifold fights, which occurred. The object was to extinguish that species of revenge which became afterwards known under the name of deadly feud. This was the fæhthe, the enmity which the relations of the deceased waged against the kindred of the murderer. • Wilkins, p. 40. Ibid. p. 54. t Ibid. p. 39. * Ibid. p. 73, 74. u Ibid. p. 40. y Ibid. p. 73. ▾ Ibid. p. 42. Though the wite was all the penalty that society exacted to itself for murder, and the were all the pecuniary compensation that was permitted to the family, yet we must not suppose that murder was left without any other punishment. There seems reason to believe, that what has been called the deadly feud existed amongst them. The relations of the deceased avenged themselves, if they could, on the murderer or his kinsmen. The law did not allow it. The system of wites and weres tended to discountenance it, by requiring pecuniary sacrifices on all homicides, and of course on those of retaliation as well as others. But as all that the law exacted was the fine and the compensation, individuals were left at liberty to glut their revenge, if they chose to pay for it. But this spirit of personal revenge was early restricted. Ina's laws imposed a penalty of thirty shillings, besides compensation, if any one took his own revenge before he had demanded legal redress. So Alfred's laws enjoined, that if any one knew that his enemy was sitting at home, yet that he should not fight with him until he had demanded redress; but he might shut his adversary up, and besiege him for seven days if he could. If at the expiration of this time the person would surrender himself, he was to have safety for thirty days, and to be given up to his friends and relations. The ealdorman was to help those who had not power enough to form this siege. If the ealdorman refused it, he was to ask aid of the king before he fought. So if any one fell accidentally in with his enemy, yet if the latter was willing to surrender himself, he was to have peace for thirty days. But if he refused to deliver up his arms, he might be fought with immediately." If any one took up a thief, he not only had a reward, but the relations of the criminal were to swear, that they would not take the fæhthe, or deadly feud for his apprehension. So if any one killed a thief in the act of flying, the relations of the dead man were to swear the unceastes oath; that is, the oath of no enmity, or of not taking the fæhthe. Every man was ordered to oppose the warfæhthe, if he was able, or could dare to attempt it." Edmund the First interfered to check this system of personal revenge, with marked severity, as before mentioned. He declared that the delinquent should bear his crime on his own head; Ibid. p. 43, 44. b Ibid. p. 19. z Wilkins, p. 16. Wilkins and Lye call this the unceases oath, which they interpret unmeaningly the oath not select. The reading of the Roff. MS. is unceastes, which is intelligible, and is obviously an expression synonymous with the unfæhtha oath mentioned in the preceding page. Both passages clearly mean, that the taker and killer of the thief were to be absolved from the fæhthe of his relations. d Ibid. p. 22. and that if his kinsmen did not save him by paying the compensation, they should be protected from all fæhthe, provided that they afforded him neither mete nor mund, neither food nor shelter.e CHAPTER II. Personal Injuries. THE Compensation allotted to PERSONAL INJURIES, arising from what modern lawyers would call assault and battery, was curiously arranged. Homer is celebrated for discriminating the wounds of his heroes with anatomical precision. The Saxon legislators were not less anxious to distinguish between the different wounds to which the body is liable, and which, from their laws, we may infer that they frequently suffered. In their most ancient laws these were the punishments: The loss of an eye or of a leg appears to have been considered as the most aggravated injury which could arise from an assault; and was therefore punished by the highest fine, or 50 shillings. To be made lame was the next most considerable offence, and the compensation for it was 30 shillings. For a wound that caused deafness, 25 shillings. To lame the shoulder, divide the chin-bone, cut off the thumb, pierce the diaphragm, or to tear off the hair and fracture the skull, was each punished by a fine of 20 shillings. For breaking the thigh, cutting off the ears, wounding the eye or mouth, wounding the diaphragm, or injuring the teeth so as to affect the speech, was exacted 12 shillings. For cutting off the little finger, 11 shillings. For cutting off the great toe, or for tearing off the hair entirely, 10 shillings. For piercing the nose, 9 shillings. For cutting off the fore-finger, 8 shillings. For cutting off the gold-finger, for every wound in the thigh, for wounding the ear, for piercing both cheeks, for cutting either nostril, for each of the front teeth, for breaking the jaw bone, for breaking an arm, 6 shillings. For seizing the hair so as to hurt the bone, for the loss of either of the eye-teeth, or of the middle finger, 4 shillings. For pulling the hair so that the bone became visible; for piercing the ear, or one cheek; for cutting off the thumb-nail, for the first double tooth, for wounding the nose with the fist, for e Wilkins, p. 73. wounding the elbow, for breaking a rib, or for wounding the vertebræ, 3 shillings. For every nail (probably of the fingers), and for every tooth beyond the first double tooth, 1 shilling. For seizing the hair, 50 scættas. For the nail of the great toe, 30 scættas. To judge of this scale of compensations by modern experience there seems to be a gross disproportion, not only between the injury and the compensation, in many instances, but also between the different classes of compensation. Six shillings is a very inconsiderable recompense for the pain and confinement that follows an arm or the jaw-bone broke; and it seems absurd to rank in punishment with these serious injuries the loss of a front tooth. To value the thumb at a higher price than the fingers, is reasonable; but to estimate the little finger at 11 shillings, the great toe at 10 shillings, the fore-finger at 8 shillings, the ringfinger at 6 shillings, and the middle finger at 4 shillings, seems a very capricious distribution of recompense. So the teeth seem to have been valued on no principle intelligible to us: a front tooth was atoned for by 6 shillings, an eye-tooth by 4 shillings, the first double tooth 3 shillings, either of the others 1 shilling. Why to lame the shoulder should occasion a fine of 20 shillings, and to break the thigh but 12, and the arm but 6, cannot be explained, unless we presume that the surgical skill of the day found the cure of the arm easier than of the thigh, and that easier than the shoulder.a Alfred made some difference in these compensations, which may be seen in his laws." He also appointed penalties for other personal wrongs. If any one bound a ceorl unsinning, he was to pay ten shillings, twenty shillings if he whipped him, and thirty if he brought him to the pillory. If he shaved him in such a manner as to expose him to derision, he forfeited ten shillings, and thirty shillings if he shaved him like a priest, without binding him; but if he bound him and then gave him the clerical tonsure, the penalty was doubled. Twenty shillings was also the fine if any man cut another's beard off. These laws prove the value that was attached to the hair and the beard in the Anglo-Saxon society. Alfred also enjoined that if any man carrying a spear on his shoulder pierced another, or wounded his eyes, he paid his were, but not a wite. If it was done wilfully, the wite was exacted, if he had carried the point three fingers higher than the shaft. If the weapon was carried horizontally, he was excused the wite.d a * Wilkins, p. 4–6. In the compensation for the teeth, the injury to the personal appearance seems to have occasioned the severest punishment. The fine was heavicst for the loss of the front tooth. b Ibid. p. 44-46. c Ibid. p. 42. d Ibid. CHAPTER III. Theft and Robbery. THEFT appears to have been considered as the most enormous crime, and was, as such, severely punished. If we consider felony to be a forfeiture of goods and chattels, theft was made felony by the Anglo-Saxons in their earliest law; for if a frecman stole from a freeman, the compensation was to be threefold; the king had the wite and all his goods." The punishment was made heavier in proportion to the social rank of the offender. Thus, while a freeman's theft was to be atoned for by a triple compensation, the servile were only subjected to a twofold retribution." The punishment of theft was soon extended farther. By the laws of Wihtræd, if a freeman was taken with the theft in his hand, the king had the option of killing him, or selling him, or receiving his were. e Ina aggravated the punishment yet more. If the wife and family of a thief witnessed his offence, they were all made to go into slavery. The thief himself was to lose his life, unless he could redeem it by paying his were. Ina's law defines these kinds of offenders. They were called thieves, if no more than seven were in a body; but a collection of above seven, up to thirty-five, was a hloth; a greater number was considered as a here, or an army: distinct punishments were allotted to these sorts of offenders. The Saxon legislators were never weary of accumulating severities against thieves; the amputation of the hand and foot was soon added. If a man's geneat stole, the master himself was subjected to a certain degree of compensation. A reward of ten shillings was allowed for his apprehension; and if a thief taken was suffered to escape, the punishment for the neglect was severe.j In the reign of Ethelstan, a milder spirit introduced a principle which has continued to prevail in our criminal jurisprudence ever since, and still exists in it. This was, that no one should lose his life for stealing less than twelve pence. The Saxon |