der, let him purge himself by twelve king's thanes. If an inferior thane is accufed, let him purge himself by eleven of his equals, and one king's thane." This law feems rather to relate to compurgators, which will be hereafter defcribed, than to jurors. The first law of Ethelred is to this purpose, "That there may be a court held in every wapontack, let twelve of the moft venerable thanes, with the gerieve, ftand forth and fwear on the holy things put into their hands, that they will not condemn any innocent, nor acquit any guilty, perfon." This law directs the manner of conftituting the judges in the hundred courts, which were the prefident and his twelve affeffors, forming a permanent body. The fecond law of Ethelred is this: "Twelve law-men fhall administer justice between the Welsh and English, fix Englishmen and fix Welfhmen." This was rather an article of a treaty than a law, and conftituted a court to determine controverfies between the fubjects of different ftates. In the next volume, we shall have an opportunity of investigating the origin of juries.'

The hint which our Author here gives, of his opinion concerning the origin of juries, by no means agrees with our fentiments on that fubject. We think that the very paffages he has produced are much against him, and that his attempts to explain them away are feeble and ineffectual. As he intends hereafter to investigate the rise of juries, we fhall not enlarge upon the question at prefent; but fhall content ourselves with obferving, that the ableft of our antiquaries have afferted the exiftence of this excellent mode of trial among our Saxon anceftors. Were we to be determined by bare authorities, we fhould certainly prefer the judgment of those who have spent, perhaps, the best part of their lives in the ftudy of English antiquities, to that of a gentleman whofe knowledge is occafionally and, it may be, haftily acquired, to answer a particular purpole. This laft circumftance muft neceffarily be fometimes the cafe with Dr. Henry, confidering the great variety and extent of his undertaking.

Our Author labours to fhew that the crown was hereditary in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. He acknowledges, however, that it was not ftrictly hereditary; and, indeed, he points out fo many deviations from the rule of fucceffion, that they almoft serve to destroy his general principle. The truth of the matter feems to have been, that Kings were ufually chofen out of the reigning family, and that the direct heir fucceeded to the throne, if he was grown up to years of maturity, and was a man of abilities and valour. Minors, notwithstanding their right of birth, were generally excluded. Dr. Henry obferves, that the hereditary rule of fucceffion is the most natural and obvious one. But the idea of a ftrict hereditary fucceffion is far from being natural and obvious. It is too refined and metaphysical to take place in the early periods of fociety. Accordingly we know, from all the hiftory of Europe, that it was a long time

before

before the rules of reprefentation which now prevail came to be firmly established. Our Author takes care to inform us, that ' our present moft gracious fovereign George the Third, is defcended from Cerdic, the founder of the Weft-Saxon kingdom.' Does the learned Doctor intend to intimate, by this remark, that his Majefty is the proper representative and heir of Cerdic? If not, the obfervation is trifling and adulatory. George the Third has a far nobler title to the crown than any claim derived from defcent; a title founded on the parliamentary determination of a great and free people. This, we doubt not, Dr. Henry will be as ready to acknowledge as ourselves.

It will be agreeable to the liberal part of our Readers to perufe the fubfequent account of the limitations to which our ancient Princes were subject:

Nothing can be more evident than this important truth,"That our Anglo-Saxon Kings were not abfolute monarchs; but that their powers and prerogatives were limited by the laws and cuftoms of their country." Our Saxon ancestors had been governed by limited monarchs in their native feats on the continent; and there is not the leaft appearance or probability, that they relinquished their liberties, and fubmitted to abfolute government in their new fettle. ments in this island. It is not to be imagined, that men whose reigning paffion was the love of liberty, would willingly refign it; and their new sovereigns, who had been their fellow-foldiers, had certainly no power to compel them to fuch a refignation. The power of administering juftice to their fubjects, and of commanding the armies of the ftate, which have been reprefented above as the most important duties of our Anglo-Saxon Kings, may be alfo confidered as their chief prerogatives. Those princes who performed thefe two offices in their own persons, with great abilities and fuccefs, had the greatest influence and authority; while thofe who wanted either capacity or industry for the execution of thefe offices, were much defpifed and difregarded.

None of our Saxon Kings ever fo much as pretended to the power of making laws, or impofing taxes, without the advice and confent of their wittenagemots, or affemblies of the great and wife men of their respective kingdoms. This is evident from the preambles to the feveral fyftems of Saxon laws which are still extant,

It feems to have been the prerogative of our Saxon Kings to call the wittenagemats, or great councils,-to appoint the times and places of their meeting,-to prefide in them in perfon,—to propose the fubjects of their deliberations,-and to execute their decrees.

When the kingdom was fuddenly invaded by a foreign enemy, or its internal peace disturbed by an infurrection, the King might, by his own authority, put himself at the head of his troops, to repel the invaders, or fupprefs the infurgents: but when a formal war against a neighbouring ftate was intended, more deliberation was required; and it could not be undertaken without the advice and confent of the wittenagemot. The Anglo-Saxon Kings had confiderable influence in difpofing of the conquered lands, and dividing the spoils

O 3

taken

taken from the enemy; but they were obliged to use this influence with juftice and moderation, and could not keep above a third part of thefe lands and spoils to themselves, without incurring the indignation of their troops. King Harold, by retaining a greater proportion than this of the Danish and Norwegian fpoils, occafioned fo great a difguft and desertion in his army, that it proved the chief caufe of his ruin. The confent of the wittenagemot was commonly obtained to the conclufion of peace, as well as to the declaration of war; because the profperity and happiness of the whole kingdom was as much concerned in the one as in the other.

Among the ancient Germans, the King had no power to inflict any punishment upon his foldiers for defertion, or other offences, this being the province of their priests, who acted by the authority of the god of war, who was fuppofed to be prefent in their armies. But after the introduction of Chriftianity, the exercife of military difcipline became one of the royal prerogatives, as it was never claimed by the Chriftian clergy.

The Anglo-Saxon Kings had no power of remitting any mult or fine impofed upon any criminal by a court of juftice, because that would have been depriving another perfon of his right; but they had a power of changing a capital into a pecuniary punishment.

The Kings of England, in the period we are now confidering, were only ufufructuaries of the crown-lands, and could not alienate any of thefe lands, even to the church, without the confent of the wittenagemot.'

Dr. Henry, after having described the wittenagemot, takes notice, that though great efforts have been made to prove that the ceorls, or small proprietors of land, were reprefented in the wittenagemots by their tithing-men, or borfholders, and the inhabitants of trading towns by their aldermen or portreeves, it must be confeffed, that of this there is not fufficient historical evidence remaining.' Here again we are obliged to declare, that we differ in opinion from our Author. We are not infenfible of the difficulties in which the fubject is involved. Nevertheless, we are perfuaded that the hiftorical, circumftantial, and legal evidences, taken together, form a strong proof of the Commons having had a fhare in the Anglo-Saxon legiflature. Dr. Henry himself acknowledges, that the ceorls were not excluded from the wittenagemot by any pofitive law; and it is not likely that they should, in general, voluntarily give up fo important and valuable a privilege.

Our Author, fpeaking of the Welch, obferves, that their animofity agaift the Saxons was for fome ages fo violent, that they would comply with none of their customs, either in civil or religious matters. But when this animofity began to wear off, the great imperfection of their own form of government made them fo ready to adopt the political regulations of their ancient enemies, that before the middle of the tenth century, the conftitution, magiftrates, and courts of Wales, were almoft

exactly

exactly the fame with thofe of England. This is so true, that a more minute and particular account of the Anglo-Saxon conftitution might be extracted from the Welch laws of Howel Dha, which were collected A. D. 842, than even from the Saxon laws themselves.'

We are furprized that Dr. Henry did not difcern fome appearance of inconfiftency in this reprefentation of things. Laws collected before the middle of the ninth century, cannot prove how far political regulations might be borrowed from the Saxons, which are intimated not to have been completely adopted till toward the middle of the tenth century. The ingenious and learned Mr. Whitaker confiders the laws of Howel Dha, as evidences of what was the ancient British constitution; and we agree with him in this refpect. There seems to have been a great fimilarity, among all the northern nations of antiquity, in their original forms and modes of government. We do not, however, mean to deny that the Welch did, in a courfe of time, take many of their cuftoms from their neighbours the Saxons.

In the defcription of the different kinds of ordeals, it is pleafant to remark the prudent care which the clergy took of themfelves. The corfned, or confecrated bread and cheese, was the ordeal to which they commonly appealed, and the appeal could not either be dangerous or difagreeable to a hungry prieft. A piece of barley bread, and a piece of cheese, were laid upon the altar, over which a prieft pronounced certain conjurations, and prayed with great fervency, that if the perfon accused was guilty, God would fend his angel Gabriel to ftop his throat, that he might not be able to fwallow that bread and cheese. These prayers being ended, the culprit approached the altar, took up the bread and cheese, and began to eat it. If he fwallowed freely, he was declared innocent; but if it stuck in his throat, and he could not swallow, he was pronounced guilty.

After the ftrictures we have made upon Dr. Henry, and which, we think, might be extended to other inftances, it is but doing juftice to him to tranfcribe what he has faid, at the conclufion of his third chapter.

If the Anglo-Saxon conftitution, government, and laws, do not appear fo excellent and perfect in all refpects, in the above defcrip tion, as they have been fometimes reprefented, and as the fond admirers of antiquity have been used to think them, the Author of this work cannot help it; and hath nothing to say in his own defence, but that he hath used his beft endeavours to discover the truth, to reprefent it fairly, and to guard against mistakes. It muft, in particular, be evident to every intelligent reader, that many of their penal laws were founded on wrong principles; and many of their modes of trial led to wrong decifions."

The fourth chapter, comprehending the history of Learning, is very entertaining, and, if our limits would permit, we could, with pleasure, make several extracts from it, especially_with regard to the literary characters of Aldhem, Theodore, Bede, Alcuinus, John Scot, and King Alfred. But we must content ourfelves with laying before our Readers Dr. Henry's obfervations upon the difficulties of acquiring literature, during the Saxon period.

That we may not entertain too contemptible an opinion of our forefathers, who flourished in the benighted ages which we are now examining, it is neceffary to pay due attention to their unhappy circumstances. To fay nothing of that contempt for letters which they derived from their ancestors, and of the almost inceffant wars in which they were engaged, it was difficult, or rather impoffible, for any but the clergy, and a very few of the most wealthy among the laity, to obtain the leaft fmattering of learning; because all the means of acquiring it were far beyond their reach. It is impoffible to learn to read and write even our own native tongue, which is now hardly efteemed a part of learning, without books, mafters, and materials for writing; but in those ages all these were fo extremely scarce and dear, that none but great princes and wealthy prelates could procure them. We have already heard of a large estate given by a King of Northumberland for a single volume; and the hiftory of the middle ages abounds with examples of that kind. How then was it poffible for perfons of a moderate fortune to procure fo much as one book, much lefs fuch a number of books as to make their learning to read an accomplishment that would reward their trouble? It was then as difficult to borrow books as to buy them. It is a fufficient proof of this, that a King of France was obliged to depofit a confiderable quantity of plate, and to get one of his nobility to join with him in abond, under a high penalty, to return it, before he could procure the loan of one volume, which may now be purchased for a few fhillings. Materials for writing were alfo very scarce and dear, which made few perfons think of learning that art. This was one reafon of the scarcity of books; and that great eftates were often transferred from one owner to another by a mere verbal agreement, and the delivery of earth and flane, before witneffes, without any written deed. Parchment, in particular, on which all their books were written, was fo difficult to be procured, that many of the MSS of the middle ages which are fill preferved, appear to have been witten on parchment from which fome former writing had been erafed. But if books and materials for writing were in thofe ages fo fcarce, good mafters, who were capable of teaching the fciences to any purpose, were still fcarcer, and more difficult to be procured. When there was not one man in England to the fouth of the Thames who understood Latin, it was not poffible to learn that language, without fending for a teacher from fome foreign country. In thefe circumftances, can we be furprized, that learning was fo imperfect, and in fo few hands? The Temple of Science was then but a homely fabric, with few charms te allure worshippers, and at the fame time furrounded with steep

and