Laws of Alfred. To fight in the presence of an archbishop meant a fine of 150 shillings.—Thorpe, p. 32. To fight in the house of a common man meant a mulct of thirty shillings, and six shillings to the ceorl.—J. Johnson. Footnote 70: Thrupp, _Anglo-Saxon Home_, p. 148. Footnote 71: See example, _temp._ Cnut. Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 174. Footnote 72: J. Johnson, _Ecc. Laws_. Footnote 73: Thorpe, fol. ed. p. 174. Footnote 74: J. Johnson, _Ecc. Laws_. Footnote 75: Thorpe, Laws of Cnut, fol. ed. p. 169. Footnote 76: _Ibid._ p 213. Footnote 77: See _Saxon Chronicle_, J. Ingram’s ed. p. 295. London, 1823. Footnote 78: Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. p. 204. Footnote 79: Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 33. Footnote 80: Often of death for serious offences, but the prisoner’s goods were forfeited for felony; hence it was to the profit of the government to have many felonies. See F. W. Maitland, _Const. Hist. Eng._ p. 111, and J. Britton, Nichols’ ed. p. 35. Oxford, 1855. Footnote 81: “To them” (the subject people) “a new tribunal seemed only a new torment.”—L. O. Pike, _Hist. Crime_, i. 134. London, 1873. Footnote 82: The hundreds were liable to be fined for undetected murders—as villages now are in India—and also officers for neglect of duty; see T. Madox, _History and Antiquities of the Exchequer_, chap. xiv. p. 539, etc. London, 1769. J. Britton, F. M. Nichols’ ed. p. 138. This liability was abolished in the reign of Edward III.; see W. S. Holdsworth, _Hist._ p. 8. Footnote 83: T. Madox, _Hist. Exch._ i. p. 425, etc. Footnote 84: Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 52. Footnote 85: _Infangthef_, the right to hang a thief, “hand having and back bearing.” _Utfangthef_, the right to punish a thief beyond the particular boundary. Footnote 86: Holdsworth, _Hist._ p. ii.; and see Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. 452, 453, etc. Footnote 87: “The lord exercised ... jurisdiction in civil and criminal suits which, with all the profits—for in early times the pecuniary interests of justice formed no small part of the advantages of judicial power—was conferred on him by the original gift.”—Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. p. 102, and Holdsworth, 13, 14. Footnote 88: See Maitland, _Domesday Book_, p. 33. Footnote 89: _Ibid._ p. 83. Footnote 90: “So intimate is the connection of judicature with finance under the Norman kings, that we scarcely need the comment of the historian to guide us to the conclusion that it was mainly for the sake of the profits that justice was administered at all.”—Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ i. p. 438. Footnote 91: After Henry II. “a crime is no longer regarded as a matter merely between the criminal and those who have directly suffered by his crime; it is a wrong against the nation.”—Maitland, _Const. Hist._ p. 109, ed. of 1898. Footnote 92: L. O. Pike, _History of Crime in England_, i. p. 130. Footnote 93: