Note 66 — Chapter II · THE REGALIA, OR RIGHTS OF ROYALTY.

There is an instance where the parties to a suit were similarlysimilarly circumstanced. The matter was brought into the king’s þeningmanna gemót in London, and there decided in favour of the plaintiff, a bishop. But the defendant was not satisfied, and carried the cause to the shire, who at once claimed jurisdiction and exercised it too, coming to a decision diametrically opposite to that of the þeningmen or ministri regii. It seems to have been a dirty business on the part of the bishop of Rochester, and the freemen of Kent so treated it, in defiance of the King’s Court. Cod. Dipl. No. 1258. The document is so important, that it appears desirable to give it at full length. “Thus were the lands at Bromley and Fawkham adjudged to king Eádgár in London, through the charters of Snodland, which the priests stole from the bishop of Rochester and secretly sold for money to Ælfric the son of Æscwyn: and the same Æscwyn, Ælfric’s mother, had previously granted them thither. Now when the bishop found the books were stolen he made earnest demand for them. Meanwhile Ælfric died, and he (the bishop) afterwards sued the widow so long that in the king’s thanes-court the stolen books of Snodland were adjudged to him, and damages for the theft, thereto; that was in London, and there were present Eádgár the king, archbishop Dúnstán, bishop Æðelwold, bishop Ælfstán and the other Ælfstán, Ælfhere the ealdorman and many of the king’s witan: then they adjudged the books to the bishop for his cathedral: so all the widow’s property stood in the king’s hand. Then would Wulfstán the geréfa seize the property to the king’s hand, both Bromley and Fawkham; but the widow sought the holy place and the bishop, and surrendered to the king the charter of Bromley and Fawkham: and the bishop bought the charters and the land of the king at Godshill, for fifty mancuses of gold, and a hundred and thirty pounds, through intercession and interest: afterwards the bishop permitted the widow the usufruct of the land. During this time the king died; and then Bryhtríc the widow’s relative began, and compelled her, so that they took violent possession of the land [brúcon ðára landa on reáfláce]. And they sought Eádwine the ealdorman, who was God’s adversary, and the folk, and compelled the bishop to restore the books on peril of all his property: he was not allowed to enjoy his rights in any one of the three things which had been given him in pledge by all the leódscipe, neither his plea, his succession, nor his ownership. This is the witness of the purchase: Eádgár the king, Dunstan the archbishop, Oswald the archbishop, bishop Æðelwold, bishop Æðelgar, bishop Æscwig, bishop Ælfstán, the other bishop Ælfstán, bishop Sideman, Ælfðrýð the king’s mother, Osgar the abbot, Ælfhere the ealdorman, Wulfstan of Delham, Ælfric of Epsom, and the leading people [dúgúð folces] of West Kent, where the land and lathe lie.” Here I take it the þeningmen or servientes regis and the leódscipe (leudes) are identical and opposed to the Folc who under “God’s adversary” Eádwine made the bishop disgorge his plunder. We see who they were; Dunstan and various bishops, ealdorman Ælfhere and several of the king’s witan. This is the only instance I have been able to discover of anything approaching to a curia regis apart from the great Witena gemót. There are, no doubt, several cases where the king appears to have been applied to in the first instance, by one of the parties; but in all of them trial subsequently was had before the shiremoot. It is natural that agreements should have been made by consent, before the king as arbitrator, and these were probably frequent among his intimate councillors, friends and relatives: but they were not trials, nor did they settle the litigation as a judgement of the courts would have done. Such arbitrements were also made by the ealdorman, who like the king received presents for his good offices. The advantage gained was this; both parties were satisfied, without the danger of trying the suit, which entailed very heavy penalties on the loser, amounting sometimes to total forfeiture. The disadvantage was that there was no ge-endodu spræc or finished plea, and consequently the award was sometimes violated, when either party thought this could be done with impunity.