On the other hand, it must be remembered that in the social life of our Old English forefathers no point is established by clearer evidence than the existence of people of all classes, from the great lord down to the slave who could be sold. Slavery was an Anglo-Saxon institution, and there are some early records relating to it. There is an account of a slave sold to a Frisian merchant in London in the seventh century. One of the laws of Ine is directed against ‘those men who sell their countrymen,’ and another of Æthelred orders that ‘no Christian or uncondemned person be sold out of the country.’ There were slaves among the Old English whom their lords could dispose of from the time of the earliest settlements. There were above them unfree men, who had certain rights and certain specified services to render to their lords. Above these were the freemen, who enjoyed the protection of their kindred, and thus formed a large privileged class. An old record says: ‘It was whilom in the laws of the English that people and law went by ranks, and then were the witan of worship, worthy each according to his condition.’[1]
All freemen were bound under penalties to attend the local assemblies of their district, and these, later on, were the Hundred Court and Shire Court. They collectively administered the highest justice, and this part of their function was recognised as late as the time of William the Conqueror, in one of whose laws they are referred to in these words: ‘Let those whose office it is to pronounce judgment take particular care that they judge in like manner as they pray, when they say “Forgive us our trespasses.” . . . Whosoever promotes injustice or pronounces false judgment through anger, hatred, or avarice, shall forfeit to the King 40s., and if he cannot prove that he did not know how to give a more right judgment, let him lose his franchise.’ The highest courts were the courts of the early primitive States, which afterwards were called shires, and the local courts were those
- ↑ Seebohm, F., ‘Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law,’ 367.
