PARDON.—When judgment was pronounced, it appears that in certain cases, at least, the king possessed the power to stay execution and pardon the offender,—an exertion of the royal prerogative which one feels pleasure in thus referring to so ancient a period. The necessary evidence is supplied in many passages of the Laws[71]. ----- Footnote 71: “If a man fight or draw weapon in the king’s hall and be taken in the act, he shall lie at the king’s mercy, to slay or pardon him.” Ælf. § 7. Ini, § 6. Thorpe, i. 66, 106. “The ealdorman who connives at theft shall forfeit his office, unless the king pardon him.” Ini, § 36. Thorpe, i. 124. See also Æðelst. v. 1. § 4, 5, Eádm. § 6. Eádg. ii. § 7. Æðelr. iii. § 16; vii. § 9. Thorpe, i. 230, 250, 268, 298, 330. ESCHEAT AND FORFEITURE.—As the royal power became consolidated, and the great struggle between centralization and local independence assumed the new form of offences against the state, the nature of punishments became somewhat changed. The old pecuniary fines were found insufficient to repress disorder, and forfeiture to the king was resorted to, as a measure of increased severity. The laws proclaim this in the case of various breaches of the public peace: in treason Ælfred’s witan decreed not only the punishment of death, but also confiscation of all the possessions[72]: in addition to the capital penalty which was incurred by fighting in the king’s house, forfeiture of all the chattels was decreed by Ini[73]. If a lord maintained and abetted a notorious thief, he was to forfeit all he had[74]. And if he neglected the fines provided, and would break the public peace either by thieving or supporting thieves, it was provided that the public authorities should ride to him, that is make war upon him, and despoil him of all he had, whereof half was to go to the king, half to the persons who took part in the expedition[75]. But the charters supply numerous instances of forfeiture in consequence of crime, where the bóclands as well as the chattels are seized into the king’s hand; though in the case of folcland it is possible that the king could not claim the forfeiture without a positive grant of the witan. About 900, Helmstán having been guilty of theft, Eánwulf, the king’s geréfa at Tisbury seized all his chattels to the king’s hand[76]: he held only lǽnland, and that could not be forfeited by him; but the words made use of show, that had it been his own bócland, it would not have escaped. We have an instance of a thane forfeiting lands to the king for adultery[77], although he only held them on lease from the bishop of Winchester; and in like manner, a lady was deprived of her estate for incontinence[78]. In 966 the bishop of Rochester having obtained judgment and damages against a lady, for forcible entry upon his lands (reáflác), the sheriff of Kent seized her manors of Fawkham and Bromley; all her possessions being forfeited to