It is, however, only fair to say that Schmid, while adhering to the view that the Kentish scilling was of twenty sceatts, has suggested that these sceatts may have been, not silver tremisses or pence, but _farthings_, so that the Kentish scilling of twenty farthings might be identical with the Wessex scilling of 5_d._[298] Konrad von Maurer held the same view.[299] But if this could be supposed for a moment, the Kentish scætt would then be only one quarter of the sceatt of the fragment of Mercian law, and the mund-byrd of King Ethelbert would be only a quarter of that of the Wessex King, notwithstanding the assertion in MS. G of the Laws of Cnut that the Kentish mund-byrd was five pounds of silver, like those of other English laws. With all deference, therefore, to the view of these great authorities, a careful examination of the evidence seems to lead to the conclusion that it cannot be maintained. Nor does there appear to be any reason why the Kentish scilling should be expected to be the same as the Wessex scilling, as we know that the Wessex scilling of 5_d._ differed from the Mercian scilling of 4_d._ [Sidenote: Kentish scilling therefore of two gold tremisses or twenty silver scætts or Roman ounce.] We adhere, then, to the view that the Kentish scilling was a scilling of two gold tremisses like the Saxon solidus, and that it was equated with the ore or Roman ounce of silver, _i.e._ twenty sceatts. The reader will be able to form his own judgment as to whether examination of the various clauses of the Kentish Laws and the amounts of the wergelds and other payments now to be considered will confirm this conclusion or not. I think it will be found substantially to do so. III. THE LAWS OF ETHELBERT. The Laws of Ethelbert begin with the heading: ‘These are the dooms which King Ethelbert established in the days of Augustine.’ [Sidenote: Evidence of clerical influence.] This heading probably did not form a part of the original laws, but it may serve to remind us that ecclesiastical influence must be reckoned with in their consideration and that some of their clauses may have been modifications of ancient custom rather than statements of what it originally was. The first clause is as follows:-- Godes feoh ⁊ ciricean .xii. gylde. Biscopes feoh .xi. gylde. Preostes feoh .ix. gylde. Diacones feoh .vi. gylde. Cleroces feoh .iii. gylde. Cyric-frið .ii. gylde. M[æþel] frið .ii. gylde. The property of God and of the Church 12 fold A bishop’s 11 ” A priest’s 9 ” A deacon’s 6 ” A clerk’s 3 ” Church frith 2 ” [Moot] frith 2 ” This clause is read by Thorpe and Schmid and Liebermann as enacting that thefts were to be paid for on this scale, so many multiples of the value of the goods stolen.[300] Clause 2 enacts:--