in their courts, instead of their own old county gemótas; while the lords themselves ran riot, dealt with their once free neighbours at their own discretion, and filled the land with civil dissensions which not even the terrors of a foreign invasion could still. Nothing can be more clear than that the universal breaking up of society in the time of Æðelred had its source in the ruin of the old free organization of the country. The successes of Swegen and Cnut, and even of William the Norman, had much deeper causes than the mere gain or loss of one or more battles. A nation never falls till “the citadel of its moral being” has been betrayed and become untenable. Northern invasions will not account for the state of brigandage which Æðelred and his Witan deplore in so many of their laws. The ruin of the free cultivators and the overgrowth of the lords are much more likely causes. At the same time it is even conceivable that, but for the invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries, the result which I have described might have come upon us more suddenly. The sword and the torch, plague, pestilence and famine are very effectual checks to the growth of population, and sufficient for a long time to adjust the balance between the land and those it has to feed. An estate of bócland might be subject to conditions. It was perhaps not always easy to obtain from the Witan all that avarice desired: accordingly we sometimes find limitations in grants, to a certain number of lives with remainders and reversions. And it was both law and custom not only that the first acquirer might impose what conditions he pleased upon the descent of the estate, but that to all time his expressed will in that respect should bind those who derived their title from him[557]. Ælfred requires his Witan, who are the guarantees and administrators of his will, to see that he has not violated the disposition of his ancestors by leaving lands to women which had been entailed on the male line, and _vice versâ_[558]; and we have cases of grants solemnly avoided for like want of conformity. More questionable in point of principle is the right attempted to be set up by some of these purchasers, to bar escheat and forfeiture of the land upon felony of their heirs or devisees. ----- Footnote 557: Leg. Ælfr. § 41. Footnote 558: Cod. Dipl. No. 314. -----