In reference to the above words in italics, Lord Selborne says that Edward (975-979) reigned between Edgar and Ethelred, and therefore Edgar could not have been the last;[183] but it must be remarked also that Edred and Edwy who reigned between Edmund and Edgar, are also omitted in this 43rd article. Then why had the framers of the whole law particularized the names of Athelstan, Edmund, and Edgar, and leave out Edred, Edwy, and Edward? If we look at the arrangement of the Anglo-Saxon laws, we find the order as above, viz., the laws of Athelstan, next those of Edmund, and next the laws of Edgar, none by Edward, then come the laws of Ethelred. The 43rd Article referred to these laws, and therefore Edgar’s were the last. So there is no force in Lord Selborne’s remarks. King Ethelred’s law on the threefold division of tithes has been found so important in the discussion on the tripartite division that Lord Selborne has devoted all his eminent legal powers, though unsuccessfully, to upset this Anglo-Saxon law. (1) His first witnesses are Selden, Spelman, Lambarde, Wheelock, and John Johnson. “Selden and Spelman,” says Lord Selborne, “_were well acquainted_ with the Worcester (Cottonian) manuscript; and as neither of them made mention of this Church Grith document, it may be inferred that they did not regard it as having the character or the authority of a law.”[184] “If Lambarde, Wheelock, and John Johnson,” continues Lord Selborne, “were acquainted with either manuscript—Church and Mund, and Church Grith—(_the contrary supposition is improbable_), the inference as to them also, from their silence about it (_i.e._ the Church Grith) must be the same,” _i.e._ that “they did not regard it as having the character or the authority of a law.”[185] I shall examine these five writers _seriatim_.