man as joint president of this assemblage.
In theory, at least, the shire-moot was a gathering of the freemen of
the shire. It met, as a rule, twice a year, and to it were entitled to
come all freemen, in person or by representation. It was within the
competence of those who did not desire to attend to send as spokesmen
their reeves or stewards; so that the body was likely to assume the
character of a mixed primary and representative assembly. The
shire-moot decided disputes pertaining to the ownership of land, tried
suits for which a hearing could not be obtained in the court of the
hundred, and exercised an incidental ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[6]

[Footnote 6: The classic description of Anglo-Saxon
political institutions is W. Stubbs, Constitutional
History of England in its Origin and Development, 3
vols. (6th ed., Oxford, 1897), especially I.,
74-182; but recent scholarship has supplemented and
modified at many points the facts and views therein
set forth. A useful account (though likewise
subject to correction) is H. Taylor, The Origins
and Growth of the English Constitution, 2 vols.
(new ed., Boston, 1900), I., Bk. 1., Chaps. 3-5;
and a repository of information is J. Ramsay, The
Foundations of England, 2 vols. (London, 1898). A
valuable sketch is A. B. White, The Making of the
English Constitution, 449-1485 (New York, 1908),
16-62. A brilliant book is E. A. Freeman, The
Growth of the English Constitution (4th ed.,
London, 1884); but by reason of Professor Freeman's
over-emphasis of the perpetuation of Anglo-Saxon
institutions in later times this work is to be used
with caution. Political and institutional history
is well set forth in T. Hodgkin, History of England
to the Norman Conquest (London, 1906), and C. W. C.
Oman, England before the Norman Conquest (London,
1910). A useful manual is H. M. Chadwick, Studies
on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905); and
an admirable bibliography is C. Gross, The Sources