of determining, with
certainty, all the prerogatives of the crown and privileges of the
people, or of giving an exact delineation of that government. It is
probable, also, that the constitution might be somewhat different in
the different kingdoms of the Heptarchy, and that it changed
considerably during the course of six centuries, which elapsed from
the first invasion of the Saxons till the Norman conquest [a]. But
most of these differences and changes, with their causes and effects,
are unknown to us. It only appears, that at all times, and in all the
kingdoms, there was a national council, called a Wittenagemot, or
assembly of the wise men, (for that is the import of the term,) whose
consent was requisite for enacting laws, and for ratifying the chief
acts of public administration. The preambles to all the laws of
Ethelbert, Ina, Alfred, Edward the Elder, Athelstan, Edmond, Edgar,
Ethelred, and Edward the Confessor; even those to the laws of Canute,
though a kind of conqueror, put this matter beyond controversy, and
carry proofs everywhere of a limited and legal government. But who
were the constituent members of this Wittenagemot has not been
determined with certainty by antiquaries. It is agreed, that the
bishops and abbots [b] were an essential part; and it is also evident,
from the tenour of those ancient laws, that the Wittenagemot enacted
statutes which regulated the ecclesiastical as well as civil
government, and that those dangerous principles, by which the church
is totally severed from the state, were hitherto unknown to the
Anglo-Saxons [c]. It also appears, that the aldermen, or governors of
counties, who, after the Danish times, were often called earls [d],
were admitted into this council, and gave their consent to the public
statutes. But besides the prelates and aldermen, there is also
mention of the Wites, or Wise-men, as a component part of the
Wittenagemot; but who THESE were, is not so clearly ascertained by the
laws or the history of that period. The matter would probably be of
difficult discussion, even were it examined impartially; but as our
modern parties have chosen to divide on this point, the question has
been disputed with the greater obstinacy, and the arguments on both
sides have become, on that account, the more captious and deceitful.
Our monarchical faction maintain, that these WITES, or SAPIENTES, were
the judges, or men learned in the law; the popular faction assert them
t