Kindred liable for half the wergeld and slayer for the other half.
Another point of interest arises from the last clause. In the absence of the slayer his kindred had to pay only a half wergeld (healfne leod). Does this justify the inference that in all cases of wergelds the liability of the kindred was confined to one half? It will be remembered that in the so-called ‘Canones Wallici’ (supra, p. 109), if the slayer had fled, the parentes of the slayer had fifteen days allowed for their payment of one half or flight from the country. And only when they had paid their share could the slayer return and make himself safe by paying the other half—the ‘medium quod restat.’ It seems not unlikely that in the Kentish case also ecclesiastical influence had limited the liability of the kindred to the half-wergeld.
Clauses 25 and 26 are important, and we shall have to recur to them.
The three grades of læts.
Gif man ceorlæs hlaf-ætan ofslæhð .vi. scillingum gebete.
25. If any one slay a ceorl’s hlafæta, let him make bot with vi scillings.
Gif læt ofslæhð þone selestan .lxxx. scill forgelde. Gif þane oðerne ofslæhð .lx. scillingum forgelde. þane þriddan .xl. scillingum forgelden.
26. If [any one] slay a læt of the best class, let him pay lxxx scillings; of one of the second, let him pay lx scillings; of the third, let him pay xl scillings.
To these three grades of læts we shall have to return when we sum up the evidence on the division of classes.