the clergy were then held, the superior learning of the bishop, his
succeeding to the power and jurisdiction of the Druid, all contributed
to raise him far above the ealdorman, and to render it in reality his
court. And this was probably the reason of the extreme lenity of the
Saxon laws. The canons forbade the bishops to meddle in cases of blood.
Amongst the ancient Gauls and Germans the Druid could alone condemn to
death; so that on the introduction of Christianity there was none who
could, in ordinary course, sentence a man to capital punishment:
necessity alone forced it in a few cases.

Concerning the right of appointing the Alderman of the Shire there is
some uncertainty. That he was anciently elected by his county is
indisputable; that an alderman of the shire was appointed by the crown
seems equally clear from the writings of King Alfred. A conjecture of
Spelman throws some light upon this affair. He conceives that there were
two aldermen with concurrent jurisdiction, one of whom was elected by
the people, the other appointed by the king. This is very probable, and
very correspondent to the nature of the Saxon Constitution, which was a
species of democracy poised and held together by a degree of monarchical
power. If the king had no officer to represent him in the county court,
wherein all the ordinary business of the nation was then transacted, the
state would have hardly differed from a pure democracy. Besides, as the
king had in every county large landed possessions, either in his
demesne, or to reward and pay his officers, he would have been in a much
worse condition than any of his subjects, if he had been destitute of a
magistrate to take care of his rights and to do justice to his numerous
vassals. It appears, as well as we can judge in so obscure a matter,
that the popular alderman was elected for a year only, and that the
royal alderman held his place at the king's pleasure. This latter
office, however, in process of time, was granted for life; and it grew