X. THE LAWS OF KING ETHELBERT—THERE WERE MANORS IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.
Tuns and hams in the time of Ethelbert,
We have seen that not only the general description of serfdom contained in the 'Rectitudines,' but also the two examples we have been able to examine of serfdom upon particular manors in Saxon times, testify clearly to the existence of a serfdom upon Saxon manors as complete and onerous as the later serfdom upon Norman manors. And we have seen that, connecting this evidence with that of the laws of King Ine, the proof is clear of the existence of manors and serfdom in the seventh century, i.e. 400 years before the Norman Conquest. There remains to be quoted the still earlier though scanty evidence of the laws of King Ethelbert, A.D. 597–616; which, if genuine, bring us back to the date of the mission of St. Augustine to England.
in single ownership.
The evidence of these laws is accidental and indirect, but taken in connexion with that already considered, it seems to show conclusively that the 'hams' and 'tuns' of that early period were already manors. Upon one point at least it is clear. It goes so far as to indicate that they were in the ownership of individuals, and not of free village communities.
[p174] The following passages occur:—
III. Gif cyning æt mannes ham drincæð, &c.
V. Gif in cyninges túne man mannan ofslea, &c.
XIII. Gif on eorles túne man mannan ofslæhð, &c.
XVII. Gif man in mannes tun ærest geirneð, &c.
3. If the king drink at a man's ham, &c.
5. If in the king's tun a man slay another, &c.
13. If in an earl's tun a man slay another, &c.
17. If a man into a man's tun enter, &c.
If there be any doubt as to the manorial character of these 'hams' and 'tuns,' it lies not in the point of the single ownership of them, but in other points, whether they were worked and tilled by the owners' slaves, or by a village community in serfdom.
The only classes of tenants which are mentioned in the laws of King Ethelbert are the three grades of læts referred to in the following passage:
XXVI. Gif [man] læt ofslæhð þone selestan. lxxx. scill. forgelde. Gif þane oðerne ofslæhð. lx. scillingum forgelde. þane þriddan. xl. scillingum forgelden.
with semi-servile tenants or 'læts.'
The word læt is of doubtful meaning in this passage. It might have reference to the Roman læti, or people of conquered tribes deported into Roman provinces at the end of a war; or it might refer to the liti or lidi—the servile tenants mentioned in so many of the early Continental codes. We are not yet in a position to decide. But in any case these læts of King Ethelbert's laws were clearly of a semi-servile class here in Kent, as were the lidi in Frankish Gaul,[201] for their 'wergild' was distinctly less than that of the Kentish freemen.[202] Whether they were a [p175] different class from the geburs or villani, or identical with them, it is not easy to decide.