212
THE SAXONS IN ENGLAND.
[book I.
Sabbath, on certain high festivals and on the days
which preceded or followed them1 ; the lord who
compelled his Jteow to labour between the sunset
on Saturday and the sunset on Sunday, forfeited
him altogether2 ; probably at first to the king or
the geréfa; but in the time of Cnut the serf thus
forfeited was to become folkfreei. To their merci-
ful intervention it must also be ascribed that the
will of a Saxon proprietor, laic as well as clerical,
so constantly directs the manumission of a num-
ber of serfs, for the soul’s health of the testator4 ;
Ælfred even goes so far as to give free power to
the serf of bequeathing to whomsoever he pleases,
whatever may have been given him for God’s sake,
or he may have earned in his own moments of lei-
sure5; and this provision, which probably implies a
prohibition to the lord of removing his labourer
arbitrarily from a plot of ground well cultivated by
his own efforts, tends to secure to the unfortunate
serf some interest in the produce of his industry :
the Hungarian will recognize in it the spirit of
Maria Theresia’s TJrbarium. Tt is moreover obvious
from many surviving documents, that, in the later
periods, the seif could purchase his own release6,
1 Leg. Wihtr. § 9, 10. Ini, § 3. Edw. GuiS. § 7. √E'δelr. viii. § 2.
2 Leg. Ini, § 3. 3 Cnut, Leg. Sec. § 45.
1 Cod. Dipl. Nos. 716, 721, 722, 782, 788, 919, 925, 931, 946, 947,
957, 959, 981.
s Leg. Ælf. § 43. ÆSelred (viii. § 2) permits the serf to labour on
his own account, three daj s before Michaelmas. Theodore (Poen. xix.
§ 30) and Ecgberht (Poen. Addit. § 35) forbid the lord to rob his serf
of what he may have acquired by his own industry. It was nevertheless
held by some that the serf could not purchase his own freedom.
6 This is true only of the Saxon, not of the Norman period. Glan-
сн. vπi∙]
THE UNFREE. THE SERF.
213
at least with the lord’s consent1, or be bought by
another for the purpose of manumission2, or even
be borrowed on pledge for a term of years3, during
which his labour might be actively employed in
laying up the means of future freedom. It cannot
indeed be denied that the slave might be sold like
any other chattel, and that even as late as 2E‰1-
red and Cnut, the law ventured to prohibit no more
than the selling him into heathendom, or without
some fault on his part4 : nor can we believe that
acts of the grossest oppression and tyranny were
unfrequent. But from what has been already cited,
it must be evident that there was a constantly
growing tendency in favour of freedom, that the
clergy suggested every motive, and the law made
every possible effort, at least to diminish the more
grievous circumstances of servitude. It is more-
over to be borne in mind that a very large propor-
tion of the J>eowas at any given time, were in reality
criminal serfs, convicts expiating their offences by
their sufferings. Taking all the circumstances into
consideration, I am disposed to think that the mere
material condition of the unfree population was not
necessarily or generally one of great hardship. It
ville expressly denies that the serf could redeem himself. “ Illud ta-
men notandum est, quod non potest aliquis, in villenagio positus, Iiber-
tatem suam propriis denariis suis quaerere. Posset enim tunc a domino
suo secundum ius et Consuetudinem regni ad villenagium τevocari ; quia
o∣nnιa catalla Cuiuslibet nativi intelliguntur esse in potentate domini sui,
[pθr] quod propriis denariis suis versus dominium suum a villenagio
se redimere non poterit.” Glanv. lib. v. cap. 6.
ɪ Cod. Dipl. Nos. 933, 934, 935, 93G, 981 (the 31st paragraph).
2 Ibid. No. 981 (the 28th paragraph). 3 Ibid. No. 975.
‘ Leg. √E‰lr. v. § 2 ; vi. § 9. Cnut, Leg. Sec. § 3.