SAXON. 
ferior to the eorl or ealdorman; and they were judicial 
officers of various kinds, and were made responsible for 
their official conduct. The thegn's were in rank below the 
eorls and ealdormen; they formed a species of nobility pe¬ 
culiar to those ancient times, which was attainable even by 
■persons of the servile class ; but it was essential to the dig¬ 
nity of a thegn, that he should be a landed proprietor. The 
thegns were of two descriptions, viz., the king’s thegns, 
and the inferior thegns, who were very numerous. The 
thegn seems to have been a military noble; thegn being a 
Saxon word corresponding to miles: the tenure of five hides 
of land was essential to this dignity; military service was 
attached to it; and the thegns were judicial magistrates, and 
assisted at the shire-gemots. 
Our author has traced the progress of Saxon legislation 
in its relation to some of the principal offences, viz., homi¬ 
cide, personal injuries, theft, and adultery. The Saxous 
considered homicide as a public as well as a private wrong: 
hence, besides the redress appointed to the family of the de¬ 
ceased, or “ were,” another pecuniary fine was imposed on the 
murderer, which was called the “ wite.” This satisfaction to 
the community was paid to the presiding magistrate, and 
varied according to the dignity of the person in whose juris¬ 
diction the offence was committed. In the first Saxon laws 
that were committed to writing, or which have descended to 
us, and which were established in the beginning of the seventh 
century, murder appears to have been only punishable by 
the ioere and wite, provided the homicide was not in the 
servile state. In the law's of Ethelbert, the were seems to 
have been uniform. The differences of the crime arising 
from the quality of the deceased, or the dignity of the ma¬ 
gistrate within whose jurisdiction it occurred, or the circum¬ 
stances of the action, were marked by the differences of the 
wite rather than of the w'ere. As the order and civilization 
of the Anglo-Saxon society increased, human life acquired 
an increased value, and the penalties of its deprivation were 
augmented. In the days of Ina, the were, or protecting 
valuation of an individual’s life, was not uniform. The po¬ 
pulation was arranged into classes, and each class had an ap¬ 
propriated were. Rank and property seem to have been 
the criterion of the estimation. The wealthier a man was, 
the more precious his life was deemed. This method of 
regulating the enormity of the crime by the property of the 
deceased was highly barbarous. It diminished the safety of 
the poor, and gave that superior protection to wealth which 
all ought equally to have shared. The were, or compensa¬ 
tory payment, seems to have been made to the relations 
of the defunct. If the deceased was in a servile state, the 
compensation seems to have become the property of the lord. 
On the murder of a foreigner, two-thirds of the were went 
to the king, and one-third only to his son or relations; or 
if no relations, the king had one-half, and the gild-scipe, 
or fraternity to which he was associated, received the other. 
The members of these gild-scipes were made to a certain 
degree responsible for the good conduct of one another, 
and therefore they were, in fact, so many bail for each other. 
This principle was so far extended, that by Ina’s law every 
oue who was in the company where a man was killed, was 
required to justify himself from the act, and all the com¬ 
pany were required to pay a fourth part of the were of the 
deceased. The same principle was established by Alfred in 
illegal associations. 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 wife. 
In the reign of Edmund, an important improvement in 
this branch of legislation 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. Although the wite was the 
whole penalty exacted by society to itself for murder, and 
the were the whole pecuniary compensation that was per¬ 
mitted to the family, yet we are not to suppose that murder 
was left without any other punishment. The relations of 
the deceased avenged themselves, if they could, on the mur¬ 
719 
derer, or his kinsmen. The law did not allow it; 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. Nevertheless this spirit of revenge wa" 
early restricted. Ina’s laws, and also those of Alfred, 
served to restrain it; and Edmund I. checked it with 
marked severity. In the adjustment of the compensation 
allotted to “personal injuries,” arising from what modern 
lawyers would call assault and battery, the Saxon legislators 
were anxious to distinguish between the different wounds to 
which the body is liable, and which their laws lead us to 
conclude they frequently suffered. In judging of their 
scale of pecuniary compensations by modern experience, 
there seems to be a gross disproportion, not only between 
the injury and the compensation, but also between the dif¬ 
ferent classes of compensation. Alfred made some difference 
in these compensations, and he also appointed penalties for 
other personal wrongs. “ Theft” appears to have been 
considered as the most enormous crime, and was, as such 
severely punished. It was made felony, considered as a for¬ 
feiture of goods and chattels, by the Anglo-Saxons in their 
earliest law ; for if a freeman stole from a freeman, the com¬ 
pensation was to be threefold ; the king had the wite, and 
all his goods: but whilst 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; and, indeed, the Saxon legislators 
were never weary of accumulating severities against thieves. 
To other penalties inflicted by the laws of Wihtraed and of 
Ina, the amputation of the hand and foot was soon added. 
In the reign of Ethelstan, a milder spirit introduced a prin¬ 
ciple, which has ever since prevailed in our criminal juris¬ 
prudence ; and this was, that no one should lose his life for 
stealing less than twelve-pence; to which the Saxon legis¬ 
lators added a proviso, which we have dropped, “ unless he 
flies or defends himself.” They also introduced another 
mitigating principle, viz., that no youth under 15 should 
be executed. Against “ adultery” our Saxon legislators 
enacted penalties, as a public wrong, always punished when 
it occurred, varying the amount of the penalty according to 
the rank of the female. Even those of the poor servile class 
were protected in their domestic happiness. To invade the 
connubial rights of one of this description incurred the 
penalty of a double compensation. Forcible violation was 
chastised more severely. Subsequent laws made adulterers 
subject to ecclesiastical censure and excommunication, and 
enjoined the banishment of foreigners, who would not 
abandon such connections. The pecuniary penalties were 
also augmented. In the time of Alfred, some new modi¬ 
fications w'ere introduced. He regulated the punishment of 
adultery by the rank of the husband; and he also distin¬ 
guished the different steps of the progress towards the com¬ 
pletion of the crime, assigning to each a pecuniary fine. 
Alfred and his wit an provided, that if the wife had trans¬ 
gressed before, the fines of her paramour were to be reduced 
one-half. The terms “ were” and “ mund” frequently 
occur in the Saxon laws: we shall here explain their mean¬ 
ing. The were w'as the legal valuation of an individual, 
varying according to his situation in life. If he were killed, 
it was the sum his murderer had to pay for the crime; if he 
committed crimes himself, it was the penalty which, in 
many cases, he had to discharge. The amount of this were 
was exactly regulated by a man’s condition in life, and it 
was therefore the measure and mark of his personal rank and 
consequence. The “ mundbyrd” was a right of protection 
or patronage, which individuals possessed for their own 
benefit and that of others. The violation of it tow’ards 
themselves, or those whom it sheltered, was punished with a 
severity varying according to the rank of the patron. The 
mund was the guardian of a man’s household peace, as the 
were was of his personal safely. 
The system of giving “ borh,” sureties, or bail, to answer 
an accusation, seems to have been coeval with the Saxon 
nation, and has continued to our times. In our earliest 
laws it was provided, that the accused should be bound over 
by 
