entered upon and claimed Wouldham, as well as Cray, on Ælfeh's death. But Ælfeh's will was sustained on trial.1

COD. DIP. MCCXC., A.D. 995. Wynflaed devises certain lands to Eadmer, to whom she also devises the remainder in certain other lands "at Faccancumb, her morning-gift."

COD. DIP. DCCIV.2 (after A.D. 1000). “Then the widow prayed Archbishop Ælfric, who was her intercessor, and Æthelmere, that they should pray the king that she might give her morning-gift to Christ's church, for the king and all his people, on condition that"...

COD. DIP. DCCXXXII., A.D. 1016-1020. "Here is declared by this writing the contract which Godwine wrought with Beorhtric when he married his daughter; that is, first, he gave her one pound's weight of gold for that she received his will; and he gave her lands at Street, &c." This was before the king and Witan, whose names follow, and then the names of those who made the wedding-feast at Brightling. "And so whichever survives shall hold all the lands I gave her and every thing."

COD. DIP. DCCXXXVIII., A. D. 1023. “Here is it declared by this writing about the contract which Wulfric and the archbishop wrought when he got the archbishop's sister to wife; that is, that he promised her the land at Alderton and at Ribbesford for her life; and promised her the land at Knightwick, that he would obtain it for her for three lives from the chapter at Winchcombe; and granted her the land at Eanulfintum, to give and to sell to whomever she most pleased during her life, and, after her life, as she most liked; and he gave her fifty mancuses of gold, and thirty men and thirty horses."

In the laws, the principal passages on the subject of marriage occur in Appendix VI. of Dr. Schmid's collection, "De sponsalibus contrahendis," - popularly known as "The Kentish Betrothal," and attributed by Dr. Schmid to the reign of Æthelstan. Two paragraphs only in this Appendix throw even a side light on the subject of dower in lands:

C. 3. "Then afterwards let the bridegroom declare what he gives her that she chooses his will, and what he gives her if she survive him.

C. 4. "If it be so agreed, then is it right that she be worthy half the inheritance, and all, if they have a child, unless that she afterwards choose again."

It is shown elsewhere that, if a widow married within a year after her husband's death, she was considered unchaste, and forfeited all rights in his property. From the passages here collected, it may be inferred that it was a common practice to dower with lands, and that dower might be the subject of contract.1 It is not apparent that there was any legal difference between the lands of dower, and those of the morning-gift. In both, the woman's power was absolute, as may be seen from the case where she carried the lands "ex datalicii dono" of her first marriage to her second husband. Elfeh's case does not militate against this theory of absolute power on the expiration of the first year. In that instance, the law of reversion of book-land prevailed over the law of dower. The discussion has been confined to those facts which are solely to be drawn from the native sources, but these few facts are sufficient to bear out fully the analogy with the Northern codes.

An essay on the Anglo-Saxon land law cannot be fittingly concluded without some reference to the feudal system, and the subject of military tenures. The researches of Thudichum and Hanssen have established the fact that personal freedom did not primarily, among the German tribes, rest on the possession of land. The opposite view is that supported by Waitz, and has been completely overthrown by the able arguments of Sohm and Roth. The latter have further shown that the attendance on the court and service in the army were, under the pure Germanic system, incumbent on every freeman, and therefore not on the possession of land. This view is also adopted by Dr. Schmid and Professor Stubbs. It will not at this day be disputed that the same system existed in England. The only question is one of time. When did the Germanic army constitution break down and make room for the purely feudal system? In answering this question, it must not be forgotten that the personal relation of princeps and comes was brought to England; and the extension of this relation to matters involving the holding of land has already been shown. Moreover, another prevailing cause of feudalism, large estates, had .existed in England from the earliest period, spreading slowly, until, under the Confessor, they must have been almost universal. Beneficial tenures of a modified form also prevailed in later times,1 and, therefore, all the factors necessary to produce feudalism were present, except the all-important one of the army constitution. The old Germanic system of universal military service was but a form of taxation, and the feudal system which replaced it was simply another clumsy kind of taxation imposed for the same objects. The germs of feudalism had all existed in England, and had there slowly expanded; but, as has just been said, the degree of development can be determined only by fixing the introduction of military tenures; or, more explicitly, the period when land is held on the condition of military services and personal relations is the true feudal period. In the time of Ine, the old Germanic system still prevailed. His laws provide that: "If a gesithcund man forego the fyrd, let him pay one hundred and twenty shillings, and lose his land; having no land, sixty shillings. A ceorl, thirty shillings for fyrd-wite [army fine]." At the beginning and during the first half, therefore, of the eighth century, it is absolutely certain that the old system prevailed. The theory of Dr. Konrad Maurer has met with general acceptance. He concludes from two passages in fragments of the Northumbrian Codes: "That, at least since the beginning of the tenth century, the higher military service was connected with the possession of five hides of land"4 (a rather misleading statement), and that this was a reform introduced by Alfred. This arrange8 Ine, c. 51.

ment of Alfred's introduced no new principle, but merely strengthened a connection which already existed. The trinoda necessitas is mentioned in the earliest grants; and in Ine's law, just cited, the office of land in connection with military service is perfectly clear. Confiscation of land was a means of enforcing attendance which a pecuniary fine might have failed to effect. The expression, "five hides to the king's utware, or army summons," relied on by Dr. Maurer, is simply used as a badge of a certain rank liable to certain kinds of military equipment1 and service. It cannot be inferred that five hides were more liable to confiscation than one. Grants of less than five hides are frequent, and always liable to the trinoda necessitas, and to confiscation for failure in army duty.2 Five hides were simply a qualification for a degree in the kinds of army services. As the small freeholders gradually sank in the social scale, land became more and more the badge of freedom. The expression of the Northern laws - and this is absolutely the only authority suggesting military tenures to dispose of3- does not represent the really vital change at work in the English army.

It is not within the scope of this essay to discuss the changes which had actually taken place in the army constitution, and had insidiously undermined its strength. At the time of the conquest, the feudal system did not exist except in embryo. The army which fought at Stamfordbridge and Hastings, with the exception of the mercenary household troops, was the "fyrd," the militia of the shires. With this militia, army duty was an individual responsibility inseparably connected with the status of every freeman, did not differ from the early Germanic system, and had no connection with land as has just been shown. The great features of the feudal system in its complete development were the military tenures of land; and without them no perfect system, such as afterwards existed, was possible.

If the course of native development had not been changed, feudalism would have followed sooner or later in England, as a natural out-growth, just as surely as night follows day. Whether a purely English feudalism would have been the same as that of the Continent, or whether it would have been more modified or more extreme, no one now can say. This alone is certain, that the slow, strong progress of England was rudely broken, and on the nascent feudalism of the Anglo-Saxons was superimposed the full-grown system of William and Normandy.1