It is clear that when William of Malmesbury mentions thirty-two shires as making up the whole of England, he intends only England south of the Humber. The list we have been examining contains thirty-four entries; of all the names therein recorded, one only can be shown to lie to the north of that river: from this however it is not unreasonable to suppose that the whole of England is intended to be comprised in the catalogue. Even admitting this, we cannot but conclude that these divisions were more numerous than our shires, seeing that large districts, such as Mercia, Wessex and Eastanglia, are entered only under one general head respectively.
The origin of the Gá in the federal union of two or more Marks is natural, and must be referred to periods far anterior to any historical record: that of the division into Shires, as well as the period at which this arose, are less easily determined. But we have evidence that some division into shires was known in Wessex as early as the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century, since Ini provides for the case where a plaintiff cannot obtain justice from his shireman or judge[[142]]; and the same prince declares that if an ealdorman compounds a felony, he shall forfeit his shire[[143]]; while he further enacts that no man shall secretly withdraw from his lord into another shire[[144]]. As it will be shown hereafter that a territorial jurisdiction is inseparably connected with the rank of a duke or ealdorman, I take the appearance of these officers in Mercia, during the same early period, to be evidence of the existence of a similar division there. Its cause appears to me to lie in the consolidation of the royal power. As long as independent associations of freemen were enabled to maintain their natural liberties, to administer their own affairs undisturbed by the power of strangers, and by means of their own private alliances to defend their territories and their rights, the old division into Gás might continue to exist. But the centralization of power in the hands of the king implies a more artificial system. It is more convenient for judicial and administrative purposes, more profitable, and more safe for the ruler, to have districts governed by his own officers, and in which a territorial unity shall supersede the old bonds of kinsmanship: centralization is hardly compatible with family tradition. The members of the Gá met as associated freemen, under the guidance of their own natural leaders, and formed a substantive unit or small state, which might, or might not, stand in relations of amity to similar states. The Shire was a political division, presided over by an appointed officer, forming part only of a general system, and no longer endowed with the high political rights of self-government, in their fullest extent. I can imagine the Gá, but certainly not the Shire, declaring war against a neighbour. As long as the Gá could maintain itself as a little republic, principality, or even kingdom, it might exist unscathed: but as the smaller kings were rooted out, their lands and people incorporated with larger unions, and powerful monarchies rose upon their ruins, it is natural that a system of districts should arise, based entirely upon a territorial division. Such districts, without peculiar, individual character of their own, or principle of internal cohesion, must have appeared less dangerous to usurpation than the ancient gentile aggregations.
[126]. Less usual are Eiba and Para. The Norse Herrad may in some sense be compared with these divisions.
[127]. There are instances which show that the custom, afterwards kept up, of “Trysting Trees,” was an ancient one. Probably some great trees marked the site of the several jurisdictions: I find mentioned the scírác, the hundredes treów and the mearcbeám.
[128]. The Gau itself had a mark or boundary. Deut. Rechtsalt. p. 496.
[129]. “Et ne longum faciam, sigillatim enumeratis provinciis quas vastaverunt, hoc sit ad summam complecti, quod, cum numerentur in Anglia triginta duo pagi, illi iam sedecim invaserant, quorum nomina propter barbariem linguae scribere refugio.” Will. Malm., Gest. Reg. lib. ii. § 165.
[130]. The division of Kent into Eást Centingas and West Centingas is retained by the charters till late in the eleventh century.
[131]. “Cirrenceaster adiit, qui Britannice Cairceri nominatur, quae est in meridiana parte Huicciorum.” Asser, Vit. Ælfr. an. 879.
[132]. Where the country is considered as a territorial division, rather than with reference to the race that possesses it, instead of sætan or setan, the settlers, we have sæte, the land settled; thus Sumorsæte. So Eástseaxe for Eástseaxan or Eástseaxna land; Cent for Centingas or Cantware; Lindisse for Lindisware.