7 ([return])
[ NOTE G, p. 155. It appears from the ancient translations of the Saxon annals and laws, and from King Alfred’s translation of Bede, as well as from all the ancient historians, that comes in Latin, alderman in Saxon, and earl in Dano-Saxon, were quite synonymous. There is only a clause in a law of King Athetetan’s, (see Spel. Concil. p. 406,) which has stumbled some antiquaries, and has made them imagine that an earl was superior to an alderman. The weregild, or the price of an earl’s blood, is there fixed at fifteen thousand thrimsas, equal to that of an archbishop; whereas that of a bishop and alderman is only eight thousand thrimsas. To solve this difficulty, we must have recourse to Selden’s conjecture, (see his Titles of Honor, chap. v. p. 603, 604,) that the term of earl was in the age of Athelstan just beginning to be in use in England, and stood at that time for the atheling or prince of the blood, heir to the crown. This he confirms by a law of Canute, sect. 55, where an atheling and an archbishop are put upon the same footing. In another law of the same Athelstan, the weregild of the prince or atheling, is said to be fifteen thousand thrimsas. See Wilkins, p. 71 He is therefore the same who is called earl in the former law.]
8 ([return])
[ NOTE H, p. 194. There is a paper or record of the family of Slarneborne, which pretends that that family, which was Saxon, was restored upon proving their innocence, as well as other Saxon families which were in the same situation. Though this paper was able to impose on such great antiquaries as Spelman (see Gloss, in verbo Drenges) and Dugdale, (see Baron, vol. i. p. 118,) it is proved by Dr. Brady (see Answer to Petyt, p. 11, 12) to have been a forgery; and is allowed as such by Tyrrel, though a pertinacious defender of his party notions: (see his history, vol. ii. introd. p. 51, 73.) Ingulf (p. 70) tells us, that very early Hereward, though absent during the time of the conquest, was turned out of all his estate, and could not obtain redress, William even plundered the monasteries. Flor. Wigorn. p. 636 Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 48. M. Paris, p. 5. Sim. Dun p. 200. Diceto, p. 482. Brompton, p. 967. Knyghton, p. 2344. Alured. Beverl. p. 130. We are told by Ingulf, that Ivo de Taillebois plundered the monastery of Croylaud of a great part of its land, and no redress could be obtained.]
9 ([return])
[ NOTE I, p. 195. The obliging of all the inhabitants to put out their fires and lights it certain hours, upon the sounding of a bell, called the Courfeu, is represented by Polydore Virgil, lib. ix., as a mark of the servitude of the English. But this was a law of police, which William had previously established in Normandy. See Du Moulin, Hist de Normandie, p. 160. The same law had place in Scotland. LL. Burgor. cap. 86.]
11 ([return])
[ NOTE K, p. 200. What these laws were of Edward the Confessor, which the English, every reign during a century and a half, desire so passionately to have restored, is much disputed by antiquaries, and our ignorance of them seems one of the greatest defects in the ancient English history. The collection of laws in Wilkins, which pass under the name of Edward, are plainly a posterior and an ignorant compilation. Those to be found in Ingulf are genuine; but so imperfect, and contain so few clauses favorable to the subject, that we see no great reason for their contending for them so vehemently. It is probable that the English meant the common law, as it prevailed during the reign of Edward; which we may conjecture to have been more indulgent to liberty than the Norman institutions. The most material articles of it were afterwards comprehended in Magna Charta.]
12 ([return])
[ NOTE L, p. 218. Ingulf p. 70. H. Hunt. p. 370, 372. M. West. p. 225. Gul. Neub. p. 357. Alured. Beverl. p. 124. De Gest, Angl. p. 333. M Paris, p. 4. Sim. Dun. p. 206. Brompton, p. 962, 980, 1161. Gervase. lib. i. cap. 16. Textus Roffensis apud Seld. Spieileg. ad Eadm. p. 197. Gul. Pict. p. 206. Ordericus Vitalis, p. 521, 666, 853., Epist. St. Thom, p. 801. Gul. Malms, p. 52, 57. Knyghton, p. 2354. Eadmer, p. 110. Thorn. Rudborne in Ang. Sacra, vol. i p. 248. Monach. Roff. in Ang. Sacra, vol. ii. p. 276. Girald. Camb. in eadem, vol. ii. p. 413. Hist. Elyensis, p. 516.
The words of this last historian, who is very ancient, are remarkable, and worth transcribing. Rex itaque factus, Willielmus, quid in principes Anglorum, qui tantæ cladi superesse poterant, fecerit, dicere, cum nihil prosit, omitto. Quid enim prodesset, si nec unum in toto regno de illis dicerem pristina potestate uti permissum, sed omnes aut in gravem paupertatis ærumnam detrusos, aut exhæredatos, patria pulsos, aut effossia, oculis, vel cæteris amputatis membris, opprobrium hominum factos, aut certe miserrime afflictos, vita privatos. Simili modo utilitate carere existimo dicere quid in minorem populum, non solum ab esed[**] a suis actum sit, cum id dictu sciamus difficile et ob immanem crudelitatem fortassis incredibile.]