n us by Tacitus. The perpetual
wars in the Heptarchy, and the depredations of the Danes, seem to have
been the cause of this great alteration with the Anglo-Saxons.
Prisoners taken in battle, or carried off in the frequent inroads,
were then reduced to slavery; and became, by right of war [y],
entirely at the disposal of their lords. Great property in the
nobles, especially if joined to an irregular administration of
justice, naturally favours the power of the aristocracy; but still
more so if the practice of slavery be admitted, and has become very
common. The nobility not only possess the influence which always
attends riches, but also the power which the laws give them over their
slaves and villains. It then becomes difficult, and almost
impossible, for a private man to remain altogether free and
independent.
[FN [x] General Preface to his Hist. p. 7, 8, 9 &c. [y] LL. Edg. Sec.
14 apud Spellm. Conc. vol. 1. p. 471.]

There were two kinds of slaves among the Anglo-Saxons; household
slaves, after the manner of the ancients, and praedial, or rustic,
after the manner of' the Germans [z]. These latter resembled the
serfs, which are at present to be met with in Poland, Denmark, and
some parts of Germany. The power of a master over his slaves was not
unlimited among the Anglo-Saxons, as it was among their ancestors. If
a man beat out his slave's eye or teeth, the slave recovered his
liberty [a]: if he killed him, he paid a fine to the king, provided
the slave died within a day after the wound or blow; otherwise it
passed unpunished [b]. The selling of themselves or children to
slavery was always the practice among the German nations [c], and was
continued by the Anglo-Saxons [d].
[FN [z] Spellm. Gloss. in verb. SERRUS [a] LL. Aelf. Sec. 20. [b]
Ibid 17. [c] Tacit. de Morib. Germ. [d] LL. Inae, Sec. 11 LL. Aelf.
Sec. 12.]

The great lords and abbots among the Anglo-Saxons possessed a criminal
jurisdiction within their territories, and could punish without
appeal, any thieves or robbers whom they caught there [e]. This
institution must have had a very contrary effect to that which was
intended, and must have procured robbers a sure protection on the
lands of such noblemen as did not sincerely mean to discourage crimes
and violence.
[FN [e] Higden, lib. 1. cap. 50. LL. Edw. Conf. Sec. 26. Spellm.
Conc. vol. i. p. 415. Gloss. in verb. HALIGEMOT ET INFANGENTHEFE.]

[MN Courts of justice.]
But though the