Serfs by force or power are not those comprised in the first class of these divisions, or serfs by the fortune of war: these of course have lost their freedom through superior force. But the class under consideration are such as have been reduced to servitude by the legal act of those who had a right to dispose of them; as, for instance, a son or daughter by the act of the father[351]. It is painful to record a fact so abhorrent to our Christian feelings, but there cannot be the least doubt that this right was both admitted and acted upon. The father, upon whose will it literally depended whether his child should live or not, had a right at a subsequent period to decide whether the lot of that child should be freedom or bondage[352]. Illegitimate children, the offspring of illicit intercourse with his wyln or þeówen, may have formed the majority of those thus disposed of by a father: but in times of scarcity, it is to be feared that even the issue of legitimate marriage was not always spared[353]. The Frisians, when oppressed by the amount of Roman tribute, sold their wives and children: “Ac primo boves ipsos, mox agros, postremo corpora coniugum aut liberorum servitio tradebant[354]:” this is however an exceptional case, and the sale of wives and children appears only to have been resorted to as a last resource. But the very restriction to the exercise of this right, within particular limits of time—which we may believe the merciful intervention of the church to have brought about—speaks only too plainly for its existence in England. Even as late as the end of the seventh century, and after Christianity had been established for nearly one hundred years in this country, we find the following very distinct and clear recognitions of the right, in books of discipline compiled by two several archbishops for the guidance of their respective clergy. In the Poenitential of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, occurs this passage: “Pater filium suum septem annorum, necessitate compulsus, potestatem habet tradere in servitium; deinde, sine voluntate filii, licentiam tradendi non habet[355].” In the somewhat later Confessionale of Ecgberht, archbishop of York, we find: “Pater potest filium suum, magna necessitate compulsus, in servitutem tradere, usque ad septimum annum; deinde, sine voluntate filii, eum tradere non potest[356].” It is however very remarkable that in the Poenitential of the same Ecgberht the sale of a child or near relative is put down as an offence punishable by excommunication[357]. These are the _servi alterius datione_ of Henry the First. ----- Footnote 351: The wife, by the act of the husband, I think very doubtful, in point of right. In point of fact this case may have occurred much more frequently than our records vouch. Footnote 352: