There were two kinds of slaves among the Anglo-Saxons; household slaves, after the manner of the ancients, and praedial, or rustic, after the manner of the Germans [z]. These latter resembled the serfs, which are at present to be met with in Poland, Denmark, and some parts of Germany. The power of a master over his slaves was not unlimited among the Anglo-Saxons, as it was among their ancestors. If a man beat out his slaves eye or teeth, the slave recovered his liberty [a]: if he killed him, he paid a fine to the king, provided the slave died within a day after the wound or blow; otherwise it passed unpunished [b]. The selling of themselves or children to slavery was always the practice among the German nations [c], and was continued by the Anglo-Saxons [d]. [FN [z] Spellm. Gloss. in verb. SERRUS [a] LL. Aelf. Sec. 20. [b] Ibid 17. [c] Tacit. de Morib. Germ. [d] LL. Inae, Sec. 11 LL. Aelf. Sec. 12.]
The great lords and abbots among the Anglo-Saxons possessed a criminal jurisdiction within their territories, and could punish without appeal, any thieves or robbers whom they caught there [e]. This institution must have had a very contrary effect to that which was intended, and must have procured robbers a sure protection on the lands of such noblemen as did not sincerely mean to discourage crimes and violence. [FN [e] Higden, lib. 1. cap. 50. LL. Edw. Conf. Sec. 26. Spellm. Conc. vol. i. p. 415. Gloss. in verb. HALIGEMOT ET INFANGENTHEFE.]
[MN Courts of justice.] But though the general strain of the Anglo-Saxon government seems to have become aristocratical, there were still considerable remains of the ancient democracy, which were not indeed sufficient to protect the lowest of the people, without the patronage of some great lord, but might give security, and even some degree of dignity, to the gentry, or inferior nobility. The administration of justice, in particular, by the courts of the decennary, the hundred, and the county, was well calculated to defend general liberty, and to restrain the power of the nobles. In the county courts, or shiremotes, all the freeholders were assembled twice a year, and received appeals from the inferior courts. They there decided all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil; and the bishop, together with the alderman or earl, presided over them [f]. The affair was determined in a summary manner, without much pleading, formality, or delay, by a majority of voices; and the bishop and alderman had no farther authority than to keep order among the freeholders, and interpose with their opinion [g]. Where justice was denied during three sessions by the hundred, and then by the county court, there lay an appeal to the kings court [h]; but this was not practised on slight occasions. The alderman received a third of the fines levied in those courts [i]; and as most of the punishments were then pecuniary, this perquisite formed a considerable part of the profits belonging to his office. The two-thirds also which went to the king, made no contemptible part of the public revenue. Any freeholder was fined who absented himself thrice from these courts [k]. [FN [f] LL. Edg. Sec. 5. Wilkins, p. 78. LL. Canut. Sec. 17. Wilkins, p. 136. [g] Hickes, Dissert. Epist. p. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. [h] LL. Edg Sec. 2. Wilkins, p. 77. LL. Canut. Sec. 18. apud Wilkins, p. 136. [i] LL. Edw. Conf. Sec. 31. [k] LL. Ethelst. Sec. 20.]