The English aristocracy suffered heavily at Ashington. The sources mention six magnates among the slain: Godwin the ealdorman of Lindsey; an ealdorman Alfric whose locality is unknown; Ulfketel, ealdorman of East Anglia; Ethelwerd, son of an earlier East Anglian ealdorman; also the bishop of Dorchester and the abbot of Ramsey.[131] It is a noteworthy fact that nearly all these are from Eastern England; so far as we know not one of them came from below the Thames. It may be true that all England was represented in Edmund's host at Ashington; but we are tempted to conclude that perhaps the army was chiefly composed of East Anglians summoned by the doughty Earl Ulfketel.
By far the most prominent of all the slain was this same Earl, the ruler of Saint Edmund's kingdom. Ulfketel is said to have been Edmund's brother-in-law. As his name is unmistakably Norse, it is more than likely that his ancestry was Scandinavian. In his earldom he appears to have been practically sovereign. So impressed were the Norse scalds with the power and importance of the Earl that they spoke of East Anglia as Ulfkelsland.[132] The sagas accuse him of having instigated the slaughter of the thingmen, especially of having destroyed Heming's corps at Slesswick. Thurkil is naturally mentioned as his banesman.[133]
Eadric's behaviour at Ashington furnishes an interesting but difficult problem. To the Saxon and Norman historians it was the basest treachery, premeditated flight at the critical moment. Still, after the battle he appears in the councils of the English in apparently good standing, even as a leader. From the guarded statements of the Encomiast, we should infer that Eadric had advised against the battle, that his counsel had been rejected, that he therefore had remained neutral and that he had withdrawn his forces before the battle was joined.[134]
From Ashington Edmund fled westward to the Severn Valley; Canute returned to the siege of London. Once more Edmund tried to gather an army, this time, however, with small success; England was exhausted; her leaders lay on the field of Ashington. Soon the Danes, too, appeared in Gloucestershire. Some sort of a council must have been called to deliberate on the state of the country, and the decision was reached to seek peace on the basis of a divided kingdom. Eadric seems particularly to have urged this solution. Edmund reluctantly consented, and ambassadors were sent to Canute's camp to offer terms of peace.
It seems at first sight rather surprising that Canute should at this time be willing even to negotiate; apparently he had Edmund in his power, and England showed no disposition to continue the war. Still, the situation in his own host was doubtless an argument for peace. After more than a year of continued warfare, his forces must have decreased appreciably in numbers. Recruiting was difficult, especially must it have been so on the eve of winter. Without a strong force he could do little in a hostile country. The campaign had been strenuous even for the vikings, and the Danes are represented as thoroughly tired of the war.[135] Canute therefore accepted the offer of the English, with the added condition that Danegeld should be levied for the support of his army in Edmund's kingdom as well as in his own.
On some little island near Deerhurst in Gloucestershire,[136] the two chiefs met and reached an agreement which put an end to the devastating war and pillage that had cursed England for more than a generation. It was agreed that Edmund should have Wessex and Canute Mercia and Northumbria; or, in a general way, that the Thames should be the dividing line between the two kingdoms. As to the disposition of East Anglia and Essex there is some doubt: Florence holds that these territories with the city of London were assigned to Edmund. So far as London is concerned, this seems to be erroneous: Canute took immediate possession of the city and made preparations to spend the winter there, which seems a strange proceeding if the place was not to be his. The kingdom of England was thus dissolved. There is no good evidence that Canute understood his position to be that of a vassal king; he had without doubt complete sovereignty in his own domains. On the other hand, the fact that Edmund agreed to levy Danegeld in his own kingdom of Wessex looks suspiciously like the recognition of Canute as overlord of the southern kingdom.
The compact of Olney, says Florence of Worcester, was one of "peace, friendship, and brotherhood." Other writers state that the two kings agreed to become sworn brothers and that the survivor should inherit the realm of the other brother.[137] We cannot affirm that such a covenant was actually made, as the authority is not of the best. There is, however, nothing improbable in the statement; the custom was not unusual in the North. Twenty years later, Canute's son, Harthacanute, entered into a similar relationship with his rival, King Magnus of Norway, who had been making war on Denmark. In Snorre's language,
it was agreed that the kings should take the oath of brotherhood and should maintain peace as long as both were on earth; and that if one of them died sonless, the survivor should inherit his realm and subjects. Twelve men, the most eminent of each kingdom, took the oath with the kings that this agreement should be kept as long as any of them lived.[138]
It is possible that some such qualification in favour of male heirs was also inserted in the Severn covenant; still, the whole matter would have been of slight importance had the magnates on Edmund's death been in position to insist on the ancient principle and practice of election. Witnesses similar to those mentioned in the later instance there seem to have been at Deerhurst; for, after the death of Edmund, Canute summoned those to testify before the assembly, "who had been witnesses between him and Edmund" when the agreement was made, as to the details of the treaty.[139]