The next head includes the serfs by reason of crime. The distinction between these and the class of criminals who became slaves through compact or redemption, is that in their case servitude was the direct punishment of their offence, and not merely an indirect and mediate consequence. It seems to me at least that this sense strictly lies at the foundation of two laws of Eádweard, Ælfred’s son; of these the former says[358], “If any one through conviction of theft forfeit his freedom, and deliver himself up, and his kindred forsake him, and he know not who shall make bót for him; let him then be worthy of the þeówwork which thereunto appertained; and let the wer abate from the kindred.” Again, “If a freeman work upon a festival day, let him lose his freedom, or pay the wíte or lahslite[359].” This alternative is an alleviation of the strict law: but as forfeiture undoubtedly followed upon theft and other offences, the thief could not expect to make bót for himself, and was always exposed to the danger of incurring slavery, should another make it for him. It is however possible that his relations may have interfered to save him, without the reducing him to a _servus dedititius_; or even if he were so reduced, he became the serf of him that engaged (þingode) for him; whereas, if not rescued at all, he must have been a fiscal serf, in the hands of the crown or the geréfa, its officer. There exists therefore a perceptible difference between the wíteþeów whom the law made so, (even though it permitted a merciful alternative,) and the wíteþeów whose punishment would have been a mulct which exceeded his means. The law of other German tribes numbers slavery among its punishments without any reservation at all: thus among the Visigoths, he that assisted in the escape of a serf, and neither restored him nor his worth to the owner, was to become a slave in his place[360]. By the Bavarian law, he that could not pay a wergyld due from him, was to be enslaved together with his wife and children[361]. Grimm[362] cites the following case: “Richilda, quae libertatem suam fornicando polluit, amisit ... filiae illorum liberae permaneant, ... nisi forte adulterio vel fornicatione polluantur.” It is true that the Anglosaxon laws do not give us any enactment of a corresponding nature: nevertheless I entertain no doubt that incontinence was a ground of slavery in the case both of man and woman. Toward the end of the ninth century, Denewulf, bishop of Winchester, leased the lands of Alresford to a relative of his own, on condition of a yearly rent: “Is equidem insipiens, adulterans, stuprum, propriam religiose pactatam abominans, scortum diligens, libidinose commisit. Quo reatu, omni substantia peculiali recte privatus est, et praefatum rus ab eo abstractum rex huius patriae suae ditioni avidus devenire iniuste optavit[363].” However unjust the canons of Winchester might think it, it is clear that the Witena-gemót did not; for the bishop was obliged to pay 120