him into heathendom, or without some fault on his part[401]: nor can we believe that acts of the grossest oppression and tyranny were unfrequent. But from what has been already cited, it must be evident that there was a constantly growing tendency in favour of freedom, that the clergy suggested every motive, and the law made every possible effort, at least to diminish the more grievous circumstances of servitude. It is moreover to be borne in mind that a very large proportion of the þeówas at any given time, were in reality criminal serfs, convicts expiating their offences by their sufferings. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am disposed to think that the mere material condition of the unfree population was not necessarily or generally one of great hardship. It seems doubtful whether the labour of the serf was practically more severe, or the remuneration much less than that of an agricultural labourer in this country at this day: his lord was bound to feed him for his own sake, and if, when old and worn out, he wished to rid himself of a useless burthen, he could by an act of emancipation hand over his broken-down labourer to the care of a Church which, with all its faults, never totally lost sight of the divine precepts of charity[402]. We are not altogether without the means of judging as to the condition of the serf, and the provision made for him; although the instances which we may cite are not all either of one period, or one country, or indeed derived from compilations having the authority of law, they show sufficiently what opinion was entertained on this subject by some among the ruling class. In the prose version of Salomon and Saturn[403], it is said that every serf ought to receive yearly seven hundred and thirty loaves, that is, two loaves a day, beside morning meals and noon meals; this cannot be said to be a very niggardly portion. Again, the valuable document entituled, “Rectitudines singularum personarum[404],” gives details respecting the allowances made to the serfs in various prædial or domestic capacities, which would induce a belief not only that they were tolerably provided for, but even enabled by the exertion of skill and industry to lay up funds of their own towards the purchase of their freedom, the redemption of their children, or the alleviation of their own poverty. From the same authority and others, we may conclude that on an estate in general, serfs discharged the functions of ploughman, shepherd, goatherd, swineherd, oxherd and cowherd, barn-man, sower, hayward, woodward, dairymaid, and beadle or messenger; while the geneát, cotsetla, gebúr, beócere and gafolswán were probably poor freemen from whom a certain portion of labour could be demanded in consideration of their holdings[405], or a certain rent (gafol) reserved out of the produce of the hives, flocks or herds committed to their care: and these formed the class of the _Læt_ and _Esne_, poor mercenaries, serving for hire or for