time. He said that Chaworth cut his waistcoat and shirt

for upwards of eight inches, and that he felt his sword against his ribs. "I suppose," said Byron, "it was then that he received the unlucky wound, which I shall ever reflect upon with the utmost regret."

It would be idle at this time to inquire how far Byron's modification of the case put forward by the prosecution was true. As far as the incidents in the room are concerned, there is only Chaworth's word as against Byron's word. But there are one or two features in the case which tell in

favour of Byron. Chaworth's remark to Byron, "Your lordship knows where to find me in Berkeley Row," was certainly in the nature of a challenge, and suggests that Chaworth was under the influence of irritation or bad feeling. After the challenge was made, it was not denied that Byron was in good humour, which rather inclines one to think that he had not taken the challenge seriously. It is clear, on the other hand, that Chaworth had not got over his feeling, for he spoke to Douston about his altercation with Byron, when he went out of the dining-room. It is also clear that before Byron stabbed Chaworth, the latter had made a thrust at Byron, for he admitted that his sword became entangled in Byron's waistcoat. Chaworth could not therefore have been attacked by Byron before he was in a condition to defend himself. But even assuming Byron's story was true, the verdict of manslaughter was a correct one, and justified by Byron's version of the incidents of the night. (Archbold's Criminal Pleading, 24th

edit., pp. 881-2.)

After a speech by the Solicitor-General, and after Byron's statement had been read, the peers gave their verdict. Four of them, Lords Beaulieu, Le Despencer, Falmouth, and Orford, said, “Not guilty." All the other peers said, “Not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter." Byron thereupon claimed the advantage of the statute of Edward the

Sixth, chap. 12, which allowed him benefit of clergy, and he was discharged on paying his fees.

The subsequent history of Byron was melancholy. Although he escaped punishment, he became a marked man. He lived in seclusion at Newstead Abbey, his country home, and became known to the neighbourhood as the "wicked lord." He ill-treated his wife, and saw all his children and his only grandson die before him. He encumbered his estates, and made a sale of his property at Rochdale, the disputed legality of which led to a prolonged lawsuit. He died in 1798, when he was seventy-five years of age. He was succeeded by his greatnephew, George Gordon, sixth Lord Byron, who became so eminent as a poet.

J. A. LOVAT-FRASER.

VI.-LEYRWIT.

AMONGST the numerous amercements to which bond

tenants and others holding in villainage by villain service were liable, that of leyrwit, or the fine for unchastity, gives rise to several interesting points.

Like the merchet, or fine paid by the villain for leave to give his daughter in marriage, leyrwit was not necessarily a custom of every manor, but though one frequently finds on the Court Rolls fines for merchet without mention of leyrwit, one never finds the leyrwit unless the custom of merchet obtains in that particular manor. From this one would feel inclined to predicate that the merchet gave rise to the leyrwit, and that had there been no merchet, there would have been no leyrwit. If we look into the matter, the object of fining the daughter of a bond-tenant for leyr seems apparent enough. The lord on every marriage is paid a fine for giving his consent. A woman who was

habitually unchaste jeopardised her chance of getting a husband, and so the lord was like to lose his merchet. Perhaps the best answer to the question as to what was originally the object of the leyrwit is to be found in the following excerpt from the Cartulary of Glastonbury: “Si nul de neffes folement se porte de son corps parque le seignour perd la vente de eux."

So far as one can gather from the Cartularies and Manorial Rolls, practically our sole source of information on this subject, the leyrwit, like the merchet, was a badge of personal slavery. Wherever such a custom obtained, every villain, and probably every free man holding in villainage by villain service, was subject to it.1

The Ramsey Cartulary for instance, is very plain on the point as the following excerpts show: "Dabit pro filia sua de leyrwyth, duos solidos, et postea quotiens cunque pregnans fuerit, vel manifeste fornicata fuerit ad plus duos solidos.2

Et pro leuerwit de filiabus, de qualibet filia super hoc convicta duos solidos, vel minus si paupertas exposcat.3

Judging from the above one would feel inclined to hold that the leyrwit was a fine imposed by the lord on his bondtenants in order that they should safeguard the chastity of their daughters, so that the lord might have as many marriageable neffes on his manor as possible. One might feel inclined to go further and say that, unlike the penance or other punishment inflicted by the Court Christian for incontinence, a punishment which was imposed ostensibly pro salute animae, the leyrwit was rather in the nature of a penalty imposed for the protection of the lord's right of merchet. Yet if we look carefully at the Manorial records, we shall find that this theory is not altogether correct. It

1 Vide Martin of Bestenover's case as to merchet, and an entry on Halmot Rolls of Prior and Convent of Durham (Surtees Society), p. 13, De Preciosa filia Vicarii pro leyrwit 6d. The Vicar must have been a free man.

2 Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, Rolls Series, Vol. I, p. 416.

8 Ibid., Vol. III, p. 61.

would seem that the leyrwit, if not originally, did in time become something in the nature of a police measure. Let us take the Court Rolls of the Manors of the Prior and Convent of Durham, whereon entries of fines for leyr are exceptionally frequent. All through the rolls we come across cases like the following :

gton Matild' filia Kynge pro leyr. 6d.1

Akeley. De Alicia ancilla magn' Johannis pro eodem [leyr]. 6d.2

Scheles. De Diota Brounyng, Alicia quondam ancilla Ricardi Barker, ancilla Roberti Loschulder pro leyr Agn' Hayn' Alicia de Boynton. 35.3

The above bond-women, let us say, being guilty of unchastity were fined, so that the lord might not suffer damage by his loss of merchet. On the same rolls, however, we also find the following:

Wallesend. De Christiana, ancilla Willelmi capellani pro leyr cum capellano. 2s.*

Hesylden. De Margareta Calverd pro eodem (leyr) cum capellano. 12d.5

In the above cases we get an increase in the fine, because the act of incontinence is committed with a chaplain. Now, so far as damage to the lord is concerned, it is immaterial whether the act is committed with a chaplain or a ploughboy, though possibly the moral offence in the former case may be the graver. Is the offence of leyr beginning to be something more than an act which may prejudice the lord in his rights, and the offender amerced, not solely according to the custom, but also as an example to the Manorial community?

1 Halmota Prioratus Dunelmensis, 1296—1383, Surtees Society, p. 2.

2 Ibid., p. 13.

▲ Ibid., p. 27.

8 Ibid., p. 143.

5 Ibid., p. 74.

Again we find the fine increased for leyr in adultery, as the following cases show:

Boulu. De Ivetta Horner pro leyr in adulterio. 2s.1

A still stronger proof have we that the fine for leyr was imposed not solely to protect the lord in his right of merchet, in that married women were subject to the leyrwit.

Moreslawe. De Alicia uxore Johannis Punchon pro leyr in adulterio cum ii hominibus.

25.2

Est-M'. De Is' uxore Roberti filii Ricardi pro leyr. 6d.3 Now, if the only idea of the leyrwit was to protect the merchet of the lord, there would be no ground for fining the married woman for unchastity. This brings us to another view of the matter, viz., how far a fine for leyr was imposed by the lord to protect his chattels from being dissipated by tenants who were cited before the Courts Christian for incontinence and adultery.

In the Curia Baronis, an early book of precedents for holding Baronial Courts, we find the following :

"Whether any bondman's unmarried daughter hath committed fornication and been convened in chapter and what she hath given to the dean for her correction." 5

Now it might well have happened that the bondman's daughter, not being able to clear herself of the charge of incontinency, may have been sentenced by the rural dean to vj fustigationes circa ecclesiam, or some such punishment pro salute animæ. Mother Church, however, had a way of commuting such penances, and would have let her go with a warning on payment of six pence. If, according to the theory, all the chattels of the bond tenant belonged to the

1 Halmota Prioratus Dunelmensis, p. 13.

2 Ibid., p. 26. 8 Ibid., p. 134.

4 It was held, theoretically at least, that a bond-tenant could have no goods of his own, but all he had belonged to his lord.

The Court Baron (Selden Society), p. 102.