These hyndens were not directly groups of kinsmen and oath-helpers, but they were artificial groups formed and bound by a pledge for mutual protection, and the use of the word ‘hynden’ in this sense is significant. There were hyndens of oath-helpers under tribal custom, and now in the city hyndens of frith-gegildas were formed for mutual defence against powerful kindreds outside their city who were in the habit of protecting thieves from justice. This was the way apparently that a substitute was found in the towns for the absent kindreds. And as time went on these artificial hyndens of _gegildas_ or _congildones_ no doubt in some measure took the place of the hyndens of kinsmen in cases of homicide as well as in cases of theft. [Sidenote: Wealth and fullness of kindred often concurrent.] Naturally in the course of time the possession of property and social status would gradually take the place of the completeness of kindred, and the two elements in status would easily be associated together in common estimation. The value of a man’s oath would depend more and more on the number of hides of land he was reckoned to possess, or for which he was responsible to the ‘King’s utware.’ If we may follow Schmid’s translation of ‘utware’ as ‘Heerbann’ and picture to ourselves the ceorl who had risen to the social position of a man with a kindred and having five hides to the King’s gafol, with his coat of mail and helmet and over-gilded sword coming up at the call of the King to the fyrd with so many followers, whether kinsmen or tenants, from the five hides under his charge and so becoming ‘gesithcund’ in regard to the King’s service, then there would be force in the further clause which declares that, although he had acquired a kindred and a coat of mail and helmet and over-gilded sword, yet _if he have not that land, he is still but a ceorl_. The power and strength and status of a person would still depend upon the combination of the two elements, and both would have to be reckoned with. A passage has already been quoted in which the possibility is admitted of a kindred becoming so powerful--_magna et fortis_--as to defy the King’s law and defend the thief.[260] There is another passage relating to breaches of the peace in Kent in which the two sources of this power of defiance are mentioned together. The dangerous person may either be _so rich_ or be of _so great a kindred_ that he could not be punished--‘adeo dives vel tantæ parentelæ ut castigari non possit.’[261] VI. THE GESITHCUND AND CEORLISC CLASSES IN THEIR CONNECTION WITH LAND. Pursuing the question of division of classes mentioned in the Dooms of Ine we turn now to the consideration of the most prominent distinction which runs through the clauses of the Dooms, viz. that of _gesithcund_ and _ceorlisc_.