When a sister received her portion or gwaddol under Cymric custom, and when she received so many cows for her maintenance from the chief of kindred, she must have had rights of grazing for her cattle in the family herd of her gwely. Till she married, her cattle would graze with the cattle of her paternal gwely; and when she married, with the cattle of her husband’s gwely. And so under the rules of this clause ‘De alodibus’ it does not follow that the distant male heir succeeding to the land of the alod was to evict her and her cattle from it. With the land he had to take also the responsibilities involved in the family holding. Clause V. states that to whomsoever the inheritance of the land shall come, to him ought to pertain the coat of mail, _i.e._ the birnie, and with it the duty of the chief of the kindred to avenge his kin and to see to the payment of wergeld if any one of the kin should be slain. Read from this point of view this clause ‘De alodibus’ becomes good evidence that, whatever changes may have been made as to female inheritance, the _land_ of the alod had not yet lost all its tribal traits. It had not yet become the ‘res propria’ of an individual possessor under Roman law. V. THE SO-CALLED LEX CHAMAVORUM. This document, according to most recent authorities, relates to a district between the Frisians and Saxons to the North and East, with the river Meuse to the South.[171] [Sidenote: The Chamavi under Frankish law.] Its real title seems to be _Notitia vel commemoratio de illa euva quæ se ad Amorem habet_, and it seems to be not so much a code as a memorandum of the wergelds and fines of a Frankish people settled in the district alluded to. Probably in date it may belong to the time of Charlemagne, but before his changes in the currency. It is of some interest to this inquiry because of its peculiar position, as relating to a tribe or people under Frankish rule, and yet with customs of its own which have survived Frankish conquest. The Notitia starts with the declaration that in ecclesiastical matters, as regards the _bannus dominicus_, the same laws prevail ‘as other Franks have.’ [Sidenote: Wergeld of the Homo Francus three times that of the ingenuus.] And then it at once describes the wergeld, as follows:-- The wergelds of this law are as under. Whoever kills-- Homo Francus 600 solidi et pro fredo 200 sol. Ingenuus 200 ” ” 66⅔ ” Lidus 100 ” ” 33½ ” Servus 50 ” ” 16⅔ ” Then follows a clause (VII.) which states that if any ‘Comes’ be slain in his own ‘comitatus’ the wergeld is to be three times that according to his birth. The _Homo Francus_ thus has a triple wergeld, like the Comes. But the _Comes_ may possibly be not _ingenuus_. He may be a lidus with official position, and so presumably, according to Clause VII., with a threefold wergeld of only 300 solidi.