their land, but not yet reduced so low in the scale as the þeów or wealh. It is not only probable that there would be distinctions in the condition of various serfs upon the same estate, but even demonstrable: it can hardly be doubted that men placed in situations of some trust, as the ploughman, oxherd or beadle, were in a somewhat higher class, and of better condition, than the mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. Now in a charter of the year 902, we find an interesting statement, which I must take leave to cite[406]: Denewulf bishop of Winchester and his Chapter had leased land at Eblesburne to Beornwulf, a relative of the bishop: the Chapter sent word to Beornwulf that the men, that is the serfs, were to remain attached to the land—“ðæt ða men móston on ðam lande wunian”—whether he, or any other, held it: “ðonne wǽron ðǽr þreo wíteþeówe men búrbǽrde, ⁊ þreo þeówbǽrde, ða me salde bisceop ⁊ ða hiwan tó rihtre ǽhte ⁊ hira teám:” “Now there were three convicts búrbǽrde and three þeówbǽrde, whom the bishop and the brethren gave me, together with their offspring.” The expressions used in this passage seem to show that some of the wíteþeówe men upon this estate enjoyed a higher condition than others[407], being _cultivators_ or _boors_, while the others were more strictly slaves. The very curious and instructive dialogue of Ælfríc numbers among the serfs the yrðling or ploughman, whose occupation the author nevertheless places at the head of all the crafts, with perhaps a partial exception in favour of the smith’s[408]. ----- Footnote 390: Tac. Germ. xxv. Footnote 391: Bed. H. E. iv. 13. Footnote 392: Leg. Wihtr. § 9, 10. Ini, § 3. Edw. Guð. § 7. Æðelr. viii. § 2. Footnote 393: Leg. Ini, § 3. Footnote 394: Cnut, Leg. Sec. § 45. Footnote 395: Cod. Dipl. Nos. 716, 721, 722, 782, 788, 919, 925, 931, 946, 947, 957, 959, 981. Footnote 396: Leg. Ælf. § 43. Æðelred (viii. § 2) permits the serf to labour on his own account, three days before Michaelmas. Theodore (Poen. xix. § 30) and Ecgberht (Poen. Addit. § 35) forbid the lord to rob his serf of what he may have acquired by his own industry. It was nevertheless held by some that the serf could not purchase his own freedom. Footnote 397: This is true only of the Saxon, not of the Norman period. Glanville expressly denies that the serf could redeem himself. “Illud tamen notandum est, quod non potest aliquis, in villenagio positus, libertatem suam propriis denariis suis quaerere. Posset enim tunc a domino suo secundum ius et consuetudinem regni ad villenagium revocari; _quia omnia catalla cuiuslibet nativi intelliguntur esse in potestate domini sui_, [per] quod propriis denariis suis versus dominium suum a villenagio se redimere non poterit.” Glanv. lib. v. cap. 5. Footnote 398: Cod. Dipl. Nos. 933, 934, 935, 936, 981 (the 31st paragraph). Footnote 399: Ibid. No. 981 (the 28th paragraph). Footnote 400: Ibid. No. 975. Footnote 401: