(6) If any one fight in the _king’s house_, let him be liable in all his property and be it in the king’s dooms whether he shall or shall not have life. If any one fight in a _minster_, let him make bot with cxx scillings. If any one fight in an _ealdorman’s_ house or in any other distinguished wita’s, let him make bot with lx scillings and pay a second lx scillings as wite. Gif he þonne on gafol-geldan huse oþþe on gebures gefeohte c.xx scill. to wite geselle ⁊ þæm gebure vi scill. But if he fight in a _gafol-gelda’s_ house or in a _gebur’s_, let him pay cxx scillings as wite, and to the gebur vi scillings. And þeah hit sie on middum felda gefohten hund twelftig scill. to wite sie agifen. And though it be fought on midfield let cxx scillings be given as wite. [Sidenote: The gafol-gelda and gebur have only a six scilling fightwite.] This clause is intelligible if we follow the principle that fighting anywhere is a breach of the king’s peace. The king, therefore, in every case and wherever it happens is entitled to a wite of 120 scillings. But if it happens within the house or precinct of an ealdorman or of any other chief member of the Witan the amount is divided between the king and his official. If the fighting is in the precinct or house of a gafol-gelda or gebur the king still gets his full wite of 120 scillings, and an additional six scillings is to be given to the gebur, just as in King Alfred’s Laws the same amount is to be given to the ceorlisc man for fighting in his ‘flet.’ This clause forms a valuable groundwork of evidence as to the position of the gafol-gelda under West Saxon law, and we shall have to recur to it when we further consider the position of the ceorlisc class at the date of King Ine’s Dooms. The omission of the gesithcund class from this section, unless included as distinguished members of the Witan, can hardly be accidental, but it is not easy at first sight to divine a plausible reason for it. * * * * * Let us for a moment try to recognise the position to which so far the Dooms of Ine have brought us. We seem able in those already quoted to trace a process at work combining distinctions of classes of different origins and based upon different lines of thought. We find a very marked and prominent division of classes into gesithcund and ceorlisc alongside of hardly more than incidental mention of the division of classes so prominent afterwards into twelve-hynde and twy-hynde. In King Alfred’s Laws we could trace no practical distinction between the twy-hynde and ceorlisc classes. We could not distinguish between them. All distinction at any rate evaded our notice. We have now to ask the double question what was the distinction between gesithcund and twelve-hynde, as well as what was the distinction between ceorlisc and twy-hynde.