Chapter X: Decline of the Torture System (4)

[33] Thus Alfonso the Wise endeavored to introduce into Spain the mutual challenging of the parties involved in the Roman _jusjurandum in jure_, by his _jura de juicio_ (Las Siete Partidas, P. III. Tit. xi. l. 2. Cf. Espéculo, Lib. V. Tit. xi. ley 2). Oddly enough, the same procedure is found incorporated in the municipal law of Rheims in the fourteenth century, probably introduced by some over-zealous civilian; “Si alicui deferatur jusjurandum, necesse habet jurare vel referre jusjurandum, et hoc super quovis debito, vel inter quasvis personas”—Lib. Pract. de Consuetud. Remens. § 15 (Archives Législat. de Reims, P. I. p. 37). By this time, however, the oaths of parties had assumed great importance. In the legislation of St. Louis, they occupy a position which was a direct incentive to perjury. Thus he provides for the hanging of the owner of a beast which had killed a man, if he was foolish enough not to swear that he was ignorant of its being vicious. “Et si il estoit si fox que il deist que il seust la teche de la beste, il en seroit pendus pour la recoignoissance”—Établissements, Liv. I. chap. cxxi.

A charter granted to the commune of Lorris, in 1155, by Louis le Jeune, gives to burghers the privilege of rebutting by oath, without conjurators, an accusation unsupported by testimony—Chart. Ludovic. junior. ann. 1155, cap. xxxii. (Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises I. 157.) And, in comparatively modern times, in Germany, the same rule was followed. “Juramento rei, quod purgationis vocatur, sæpe etiam innocentia, utpote quæ in anima constitit, probatur et indicia diluuntur;” and this oath was administered when the evidence was insufficient to justify torture. (Zangeri Tract. de Quæstionibus, cap. iii. No. 46.) In 1592, Zanger wrote an elaborate essay to prove the evils of the custom.

It is a noteworthy fact, however, that of all the medieval codes the one least affected by the influence of the Roman law was the Saxon, and in this the purgatorial power of the oath was admitted to a degree unknown elsewhere. The accused was allowed in certain cases to clear himself, however notorious were the facts, and no evidence was admitted to disprove his position, unless it were a question of theft, and the stolen articles were found in his possession, or he had suffered a previous conviction. (Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. Art. 15, 18, 39; Lib. II. Art. 4, 72.) Even this was an improvement on the previous custom, if we may believe Cardinal Henry of Susa, who denounces the practice in Saxony and Dacia, where a man can clear himself, even if he holds the stolen article in his hand and the loser has ample witnesses present (Hostiensis Aureæ Summæ Lib. V. De Purg. canon. § 3). This irrational abuse was long in vogue, and was denounced by the council of Bâle in the fifteenth century (Schilter. Thesaur. II. 291). It only prevailed in the north of Germany; the Jus Provin. Alaman. (cap. ccclxxxi. § 3), which regulated Southern Germany, alludes to it as one of the distinguishing features of the Saxon code.

So, also, at the same period a special privilege was claimed by the inhabitants of Franconia, in virtue of which a murderer was allowed to rebut with his single oath all testimony as to his guilt, unless he chanced to be caught with the red hand—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. cvi. § 7.

[34] “Ego solus jurare volo, tu, si audes, nega sacramentum meum et armis mecum contende.”—Ll. Ripuar. Tit. IX. § 3.

[35] Laws of Wihtræd, cap. 16-21. Comp. LI. Henrici I. Tit. lxiv. § 8.

[36] Anomalous Laws, Book IV. chap. i. § 11.

[37] Jur. Provin. Alaman. cclxiv. 7, 8.

[38] Fuero Viejo, III. ii.

[39] Book VII. 109-13 (after Delongchamps’ translation).

The corresponding passage in the Institutes of Vishnu (VIII. 20-3) renders this somewhat more intelligible. When the judge swears the witness—

“A Brahmana he must address thus, ‘Declare.’

“A Kshatriya he must address thus, ‘Declare the truth.’

“A Vaisya he must address thus, ‘Thy kine, grain, and gold (shall yield thee no fruit if thou wert to give false evidence).’

“A Sudra he must address thus, ‘Thou shalt have to atone for all (possible) heavy crimes (if thou wert to give false evidence).’”

[40] Institutes of Vishnu, IX. (Jolly’s Translation).

[41] Iliad. XV. 36-40.—Luciani Philopseud. 5; Cataplus 11.

[42] LI. 3, 4, D. XII. ii.

[43] Volundarkvida 31 (Thorpe’s Sæmund’s Edda). A curious remnant of this is seen in the burgher law of Northern Germany in the thirteenth century, by which a man reclaiming a stolen horse was bound to kick its left foot with his right foot, while with his left hand he took hold of the animal’s ear and swore by its head that it was his.—Sachsisches Weichbild, art. 135.

[44] Deuteron. xxi. 4-8.

[45] Pausan. III. xx. 9.

[46] Islands Landnamabok IV. 7; II. 9 (Ed. 1774, pp. 299, 83).

[47] Keyser’s Religion of the Northmen, Pennock’s Translation, p. 238.

[48] Gen. xv. 9-17.—Jer. xxxiv. 18-19.—I. Kings, viii. 31-2.—Chrysost. Orat. adv. Jud. I. 3.

[49] Anastas. Biblioth. No. LXII.

[50] Ecgberti Dialog. IV. (Haddan and Stubbs’s Councils of Great Britain, III. 405).

[51] Gregor. Turon. Hist. Lib. V. cap. xlix. Gregory complains that this was contrary to the canons, of which more hereafter.

[52] Dooms of Alfred, cap. 33.

[53] Dimetian Code, Bk. II. chap. vi. § 17 (Owen, I. 431).

[54] Fleta, Lib. II. cap. lxiii. § 12. The Moslem jurisprudence has a somewhat similar provision for accusatorial oaths in the Iesameh by which a murderer can be convicted, in the absence of testimony or confession, by fifty oaths sworn by relatives of the victim. Of these there must be at least two, and the fifty oaths are divided between them in proportion to their respective legal shares in the Deeyeh, or blood-money for the murder.—Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, I. 269.—Seignette, Code Mussulman, Constantine, 1878, p. lvi.

[55] Fredegarii Chron. cap. xcvii.

[56] Excerpt. de Libro Davidis No. xvi. (Haddan and Stubbs, I. 120).

[57] Si in manu episcopi ... aut in cruce consecrata perjurat III. annos pœniteat. Si vero in cruce non consecrata perjurat, I. annum pœniteat; si autem in manu hominis laici juraverit nihil est.—Theodori Cantuar. Pœnit. cap. xxiv. § 2. (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, vol. II. p. 29.) Cf. Haddan and Stubbs, III. 423; Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen, pp. 190, 226.

[58] Pœnitent. Pseudo-Gregor. III. vii. (Wasserschleben, p. 539).

[59] Pœnitent. Cummeani cap. V. § 3 (Wasserschleben, p. 477).—Gratiani Decr. c. 2. Caus. XXII. Q. v. In the fourteenth century this was repeated in the penitential canons of Astesanus (§ 23), which continued until the Reformation to be a recognized authority in the confessional. Astesanus, however, explains that the obligation is equal to God, but unequal as regards the church, whence the difference in the penance.—Astesani Summa de Casibus Conscientiæ, P. I. Lib. I. Tit. xviii.

[60] Anomalous Laws, Book IX. chap. v. § 3; chap. xxxviii. § 1 (Owen, II. 233, 303). The definition of relics, however, was somewhat vague—“There are three relics to swear by: the staff of a priest; the name of God; and hand to hand with the one sworn to.” Bk. XIII. ch. ii. § 219 (Ibid. II. 557).

[61] Regino de Eccles. Discip. Lib. I. cap. ccc. See also Jur. Provin. Saxon, Lib. III. c. 41. Notwithstanding the laxity of these doctrines, it is not to be supposed that the true theory of the oath was altogether lost. St. Isidor of Seville, who was but little anterior to Theodore of Canterbury, well expresses it (Sententt. Lib. II. cap. xxxi. § 8): “Quacunque arte verborum quisque juret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiæ testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille cui juratur intelligit,” and this, being adopted in successive collections of canons, coexisted with the above as a maxim of ecclesiastical law (Ivon. Decret. P. XII. c. 36.—Gratian. c. 13, Caus. XXII. Q. ii.).

[62] Helgaldi Vit. Roberti Regis.

[63] Augustin. Epist. 78, §§ 2, 3 (Ed. Benedict.).

[64] Gregor. Turon. de Gloria Martyr. cap. 58, 103.

[65] Suppression of Monasteries, p. 186 (Camden Soc. Pub.). The Priory of Cardigan was dependent upon the Abbey of Chertsey, and the sum named was apparently the abbot’s share of the annual “alms.”

Perhaps the most suggestive illustration of the reverence for relics is a passage in the ancient Welsh laws limiting the protection legally afforded by them—“If a person have relics upon him and does an illegal act under the relics, he is not to have protection or defence through those relics, for he has not deserved it.”—Venedotian Code, Bk. I. chap. x. § 7.

[66] Espéculo, Lib. V. Tit. xi. leyes 14, 15. The oaths required of Jews and Moors were much more elaborate (Ibid. 16, 17).

[67] Patetta, Le Ordalie, Torino, 1890, p. 130.

[68] Yet compurgators appear in the Spanish laws of the twelfth century. See Fuero de Balbás, ann. 1135 (Coleccion de Privilegios, etc. Madrid, 1833, T. VI. p. 85).

[69] The primitive Scottish procedure appears to have been based on compurgation.—Neilson’s Trial by Combat, London, 1890, p. 78.

[70] First Text of Pardessus, Tit. xxxix. § 2, and Tit. xlii. § 5 (Loi Salique, Paris, 1843, pp. 21, 23). It is somewhat singular that in the subsequent recensions of the code the provision is omitted in these passages.

[71] Eginhard. Annal. ann. 800.—The monkish chroniclers have endeavored to conceal the fact that Leo underwent the form of trial like a common criminal, but the evidence is indubitable. Charlemagne alludes to it in the _Capitularium Aquisgranense_ ann. 803, in a manner which admits of no dispute.

The monk of St. Gall (De Gestis B. Carol. Mag. Lib. i. cap. 28), whose work is rather legendary in its character, describes the Pope as swearing to his innocence by his share at the day of judgment in the promises of the gospels, which he had placed upon his head.

[72] Capit. Aquisgran. ann. 803, cap. vii.

[73] Bonifacii Epist. cxxvi.

The subject of the oaths of priests was one of considerable perplexity during the dark ages. Among the numerous privileges assumed by the sacerdotal body was exemption from the necessity of swearing, an exemption which had the justification of the ancient Roman custom; “Sacerdotem, Vestalem, et Flaminem Dialem in omni mea jurisdictione jurare non cogam” (Edict. Perpet. ap. Aul. Gell. x. 15). The effort to obtain the reversion of this privilege dates from an early period, and was sometimes allowed and sometimes rejected by the secular authorities, both as respects promissory, judicial, and exculpatory oaths. The struggle between church and state on this subject is well exemplified in a case which occurred in 1269. The Archbishop of Reims sued a burgher of Chaudardre. When each party had to take the oath, the prelate demanded that his should be taken by his attorney. The defendant demurred to this, alleging that the archbishop had in person presented the complaint. Appeal was made to the Parlement of Paris, which decided that the defendant’s logic was correct, and that the personal oath of the prelate was requisite (Olim, I. 765).

In Spain, a bishop appearing in a secular court, either as plaintiff or defendant, was not exempt from the oath, but had the singular privilege of not being compelled to touch the gospels on which he swore.—Siete Partidas, P. III. Tit. xl. l. 24.

[74] Gratian. c. 19, Caus. II. Q. V.

[75] Eginhard. Annal. ann. 823.

[76] Atton. de Pressuris Ecclesiast. P. 1.

[77] Buchardus, Ivo, Gratianus, _passim_.—Ivon. Epist. 74.

[78] L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. xxi. § 9; Tit. lv. § 12.—L. Burgund. Tit. vii.—Laws of Ethelred, Tit. ix. §§ 23, 24.—L. Henrici I. cap. lxxiv. § 1. Feudor. Lib. V. Tit. ii.

This point illustrates the essential distinction between witnesses and compurgators. The Roman law exercised great discrimination in admitting the evidence of a relative to either party in an action (Pauli Sentent. Lib. V. Tit. xv.—Ll. 4, 5, 6, 9. Dig. XXII. v.). The Wisigoths not only adopted this principle, but carried it so far as to exclude the evidence of a kinsman in a cause between his relative and a stranger (L. Wisigoth. Lib. II. Tit. iv. c. 12), which was adopted into the Carlovingian legislation (Benedict. Levit. Capitul. Lib. VI. c. 348) under the strong Romanizing influence which then prevailed. The rule, once established, retained its place through the vicissitudes of the feudal and customary law (Beaumanoir, Coutumes du Beauvoisis, cap. xxxix. § 38.—Cout. de Bretagne, Tit. vii. art. 161, 162). In the ancient Brahmanic legislation the evidence of both friends and enemies was excluded (Institutes of Vishnu, viii. 3).

[79] Anomalous Laws, Bk. IX. chap. ii. § 4; chap. v. § 2 (Owen, II. 225, 233). This collection of laws is posterior to the year 1430.

[80] Anomalous Laws, Bk. V. chap. ii. § 117 (Ibid. II. p. 85).

[81] Ibid. § 144 (p. 95).

[82] Aimoini Lib. III. c. 29.

[83] Greg. Turon. Lib. VIII. c. 9.

[84] Herman. Contract. ann. 899.

[85] Spelman. Concil. I. 335.

[86] Venedotian Code, Book III. chap. i. §§ 1-10.—Dimetian and Gwentian Codes, Book II. chap. i. §§ 10-12 (Owen I. 219-21, 407, 689).—There is very great confusion in these laws as to the numbers requisite for many crimes, but with respect to the accessories of _galanas_, or homicide, the rule appears to have been absolute.—Cf. Spelman, Glossary s. v. _Assath_.

[87] Venedotian Code, Book III. chap. i. § 18. Anomalous Laws, Book IV. chap. iii. §§ 12, 13 (Ibid. I. 231, II. 23).

[88] Ibid. § 17 (p. 231); cf. Book II. chap. viii. § 4 (p. 137).

[89] Gwentian Code, Book II. chap. iii. § 11 (Ibid. I. 691).

[90] Leg. Cimbric. Lib. II. c. 9.—Constit. Woldemari Regis §§ 9, 52, 56, 86. Throughout Germany a minor son could be cleared, even in capital accusations, by the single purgatorial oath of his father, if it was the first time that they had been defendants in court.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxix. § 1; Sachsische Weichbild, art. 76.

[91] Böhlau, Nove constitutiones Dom. Alberti, pp. 2, 6, 12, 38 (Weimar, 1858). “Cum duobus viris bone opinionis et integri status, sinodalibus hominibus.” The expression is doubtless derived from the _testes synodales_—men of standing and reputation selected in episcopal synods to act as a kind of grand jury and report the sins of their neighbors.

[92] This has been denied by those who assume that the _frithborgs_ of Edward the Confessor are the earliest instance of such institutions, but traces of communal societies are to be found in the most ancient text of the Salic law (First text of Pardessus, Tit. XLV.), and both Childebert and Clotair II., in edicts promulgated near the close of the sixth century, hold the hundreds or townships responsible for robberies committed within their limits (Decret. Childeberti ann. 595, c. 10; Decret. Chlotarii II. c. 1).

It is not improbable that, as among all the barbarian races, the family was liable for the misdeeds of its members, so the tribe or clan of the offender was held responsible when the offence was committed upon a member of another tribe, and such edicts as those of Childebert and Clotair were merely adaptations of the rule to the existing condition of society. The most perfect early code that has reached us, that of the ancient Irish, expresses in detail the responsibility of each sept for the actions not only of its members, but of those also who were in any way connected with it. “And because the four nearest tribes bear the crime of each kinsman of their stock.... And because there are four who have an interest in every one who sues and is sued: the tribe of the father, the chief, the church, the tribe of the mother or foster-father.... Every tribe is liable after the absconding of a member of it, after notice, after warning, and after lawful waiting.”—Senchus Mor, I. 263-5.

[93] See Mr. Pike’s very interesting “History of Crime in England,” Vol. I. pp. 61-2. London, 1873.

[94] First text of Pardessus, Tit. XLII. § 5.

[95] Marculf. App. xxxii.; xxix.

[96] Pact. pro Tenore Pacis cap. vi.

[97] L. Alaman. Tit. lxxvi.

[98] Capit. Car. Mag. IV. ann. 803, cap. x.

[99] Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 231.

[100] Hartzheim Concil. German. II. 600.

[101] Lagrèze, Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, p. 47, Paris, 1867.

[102] Pike, op. cit. I. 451.

[103]

Pontificem parium manus expurgat duodena.
Sexta sacerdotem, levitam tertia purgat.
Maior maiori, minor est adhibenda minori.
Quem plebs infamat purgabitur in manifesto.

Hostiensis Aureæ Summæ Lib. V. Tit. _De Purgat. canon._ § 4.

[104] Ibid. § 5.

[105] Quoniam Attachiamenta cap. xxiv. §§ 1, 4; cap. lxxv. §§ 1, 4. In another subsequent code, in simple cases of theft, when the accuser had no testimony to substantiate his claim, thirty conjurators were necessary, of whom three must be nobles (Regiam Majestatem Lib. IV. c. 21). For the disputed date of the _Regiam_ see Neilson, Trial by Combat, ch. 30.

[106] Leg. Burgorum cap. xxiv. §§ 1, 3.

[107] Anomalous Laws, Book XIII. chap. ii. § 94 (Owen II. 521).

[108] Gwentian Code, Bk. II. chap. vii. § 10 (Ibid. I. 701).

[109] Anomalous Laws, Bk. IX. chap. ii. § 4; chap. xx. § 12; chap. xxi. § 3.—Book XIV. chap. xxxviii. § 16.—Book V. chap. ii. § 112 (Ibid. II. 225, 261, 709, 83).

Under the primitive Venedotian Code (Book III. chap. i. §§ 13, 19) only twelve men were required, one-half to be _nod-men_, two-thirds of paternal, and one-third of maternal kin; while in the Gwentian Code (Book II. chap. ii. § 10) and in the Dimetian Code (Book II. chap. iii. § 10, Book III. chap. i. § 24), fifty are prescribed.

The _nod men_, as will be seen hereafter, were conjurators who took a special form of oath.

[110] Anomalous Laws, Book XIV. chap. xxxviii. § 16; Book IX. chap. xx. § 12; chap. xxi. § 1.

[111] Leges Wallice, Lib. II. cap. xxiii. § 17 (Owen II. 848). It is worthy of remark that one of the few instructions for legal procedures contained in the Korán relates to cases of this kind. Chapter xxiv. 6-9 directs that a husband accusing his wife of infidelity, and having no witnesses to prove it, shall substantiate his assertion by swearing five times to the truth of the charge, invoking upon himself the malediction of God; while the wife was able to rebut the accusation by the same process. As this chapter, however, was revealed to the Prophet after he had writhed for a month under a charge brought against his favorite wife Ayesha, which he could not disregard and did not wish to entertain, the law is rather to be looked upon as _ex post facto_ than as indicating any peculiar tendency of the age or race.

[112] Anomalous Laws, Book XI. chap. v. §§ 40, 41 (Ibid. II. 445).

[113] Wealreaf, _i. e._, mortuum refere, est opus nithingi; si quis hoc negare velit, faciat hoc cum xlviii. taynis plene nobilibus.—Leg. Æthelstani, de Ordalio.

[114] Sacramentum liberalis hominis, quem quidem vocant _twelfhendeman_, debet stare et valere juramentum septem villanorum (Cnuti Secular. cap. 127). The _twelfhendeman_ meant a thane (Twelfhindus est homo plene nobilis i. Thainus.—Leg. Henrici I. Tit. lxxvi. § 4), whose price was 1200 solidi. So thoroughly did the structure of jurisprudence depend upon the system of _wer-gild_ or composition, that the various classes of society were named according to the value of their heads. Thus the villein or _cherleman_ was also called _twyhindus_ or _twyhindeman_, his _wer-gild_ being 200 solidi; the _radcnicht_ (road-knight, or mounted follower) was a _sexhendeman_; and the comparative judicial weight of their oaths followed a similar scale of valuation, which was in force even subsequently to the Conquest (Leg. Henrici I. Tit. lxiv. § 2).

[115] L. Frision. Tit. I.

[116] Hincmari Epist. xxxiv. So also in his Capit. Synod. ann. 852, II. xxv.

[117] L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 5.

[118] Ibid. Tit. xxi. § 9.

[119] Proost, Récherches sur la Législation des Jugements de Dieu, Bruxelles, 1868, p. 96.

[120] Nominentur ei XIV., et adquirat XI., et ipse sit duodecimus.—L. Cnuti c. lxvi. Horne, who probably lived in the reign of Edward II., attributes to Glanville the introduction of the jury-trial.—“Car, pur les grandes malices que lon soloit procurer en testmonage et les grands delaies qui se fierent en les examinements, exceptions et attestations, ordeina Randulph de Glanvile celle certeine Assise ou recognitions et jurées se feissent per XII jurors, les procheins vicines, et issint est cest establissement appelé assise.”—Myrror of Justice, cap. II. sect. xxv. For a minute examination into the origin of the jury-trial, see a series of articles by Prof. J. B. Thayer in the Harvard Law-Review for 1892.

[121] Laws of Ethelred, Tit. III. c. xiii.

[122] L. Henrici I. Tit. xxxi. § 8; Tit. lxvi. § 10.

[123] Constit. Woldemari Regis §§ lii. lxxii.

[124] Fuero de Balbás (Coleccion de Privilegios, etc. Madrid, 1833, T. VI. p. 85).

[125] Prof. J. B. Thayer, in Harvard Law Review, Vol. V. p. 58.

[126] L. Scaniæ Lib. vii. c. 8.—Chart. Woldemari Regis, ann. 1163 (Du Cange s. v. _Juramentum_).

[127] Jarnsida, Thiofa-Balkr, cap. ix. X.

[128] Leges Gulathingenses, Thiofa-Bolkr, c. xiii. (Ed. Havniæ 1817, p. 547).

[129] L. Longobard. I. xxxiii. 1, 3.

[130] L. Burgund. Tit. viii.

[131] Capit. Car. Mag. I. ann. 789 c. lxii.

[132] Ibid.

[133] Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 829 Tit. III. § vi.

[134] For. de Morlaas, Rubr. xli. art. 146-7.

[135] Que sien boos et loyaus, et que no sien enemicxs.—Fors de Béarn, Rubr. xxx.

[136] Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary, Philadelphia, 1892, p. 100.

[137] Königswarter, Études Historiques. p. 167.

[138] Nam nulli liceat, postquam manifestaverit, postea per sacramentum negare, quod non sit culpabilis, postquam ille se culpabilem assignavit. Quia multos cognovimus in regno nostro tales pravas opponentes intentiones, et hæc moverunt nos præsentem corrigere legem, et ad meliorem statum revocare.—L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 8.

[139] Si quis hominem ingenuo plagiaverit et probatio certa non fuit, sicut pro occiso juratore donet. Si juratores non potuerit invenire, VIII M dinarios, qui faciunt solidos CC, culpabilis judicetur (Tit. xxxix. § 2). A similar provision—“si tamen probatio certa non fuerit”—occurs in Tit. xlii. § 5.

[140] Si quis hominem occiderit et negare voluerit, cum duodecim nominatis juret.—L. Alaman. Tit. LXXXIX.

[141] L. Alaman. Tit. XLII.

[142] Islands Landnamabok II. ix. (p. 83).

[143] For instance, in the Baioarian law—“Nec facile ad sacramenta veniatur.... In his vero causis sacramenta præstentur in quibus nullam probationem discussio judicantis invenerit” (L. Baioar. Tit. VIII. c. 16). In a Capitulary of Louis le Débonnaire—“Si hujus facti testes non habuerit cum duodecim conjuratoribus legitimis per sacramentum adfirmet” (Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 819, § 1). In one of the Emperor Lothair—“Si testes habere non poterit, concedimus ut cum XII. juratoribus juret” (L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. IX. § 37). So Louis II., in 854, ordered that a man accused of harboring robbers, if taken in the act, was to be immediately punished; but if merely cited on popular rumor, he was at liberty to clear himself with twelve compurgators (Recess. Ticinen. Tit. II. cap. 3).

It was the same in subsequent periods. The Scottish law of the thirteenth century alludes to the absence of testimony as a necessary preliminary, but when an acquittal was once obtained in this manner the accused seems to have been free from all subsequent proceedings, when inconvenient witnesses might perhaps turn up—“Et si hoc modo purgatus fuerit, absolvetur a petitione Regis in posterum” (Regiam Majestatem, Lib. IV. c. 21). So, in the laws of Nieuport, granted by Philip of Alsace, Count of Flanders, in 1163 “Et si hoc scabini vel opidani non cognoverint, conquerens cum juramento querelam suam sequetur, et alter se excusabit juramento quinque hominum” (Leg. secundæ Noviportus). See also the Consuetud. Tornacens. ann. 1187, §§ ii. iii. xvi., where two conjurators release a defendant from a claim of debt unsupported by evidence. In case of assault, “si constans non fuerit,” two conjurators clear the accused; in case of wounding, six are required if the affair occurred by daylight; if at night, the cold water ordeal is prescribed (D’Achery, Spicileg. III. 551-2). The legislation of Norway and Iceland in the next century is even more positive “Iis tantum concessis quæ legum codices sanciunt, juramenta nempe purgatoria et accusatoria, ubi legitimi defuerint testes” (Jarnsida, Mannhelge, cap. xxxvii.).

On the other hand, an exception to this general principle is apparently found in a constitution of the Emperor Henry III., issued about the middle of the eleventh century “Si quem ex his dominus suus accusaverit de quacunque re, licet illi juramento se cum suis coæqualibus absolvere, exceptis tribus: hoc est si in vitam domini sui, aut in cameram ejus consilium habuisse arguitur, aut in munitiones ejus. Cæteris vero hominibus de quacunque objectione, absque advocato, cum suis coæqualibus juramento se poterit absolvere” (Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 231).

In a constitution of Frederic II. in 1235, the oaths of six compurgators clear a man accused of having commenced hostilities without awaiting the three days term prescribed after defiance, no evidence being alluded to on either side—“et nisi violator productus super hoc vel septena manu sinodalium hominum purgaverit innocentiam suam quod non commiserat contra hoc statutum perpetuo pene subiaceat quod dicitur erenlos und rehtlos”—Nove Constitutiones Dom. Alberti, p. 12 (Weimar, 1858).

[144] S. Raymondi Summæ Lib. III. Tit. xxxi. § v. _ad calcem._

[145] Gwentian Code, Book II. chap. xxxix. § 40 (Owen I. 787). So, in disowning a child, if the reputed father were dead, the oaths of the chief of the kindred, with seven of the kinsmen, were decisive, or, in default of the chief, the oaths of fifty kinsmen (Ibid. § 41).

[146] Anomalous Laws, Book IX. chap. ii. § 9 (Ibid. II. 227).

[147] Ibid. Book VIII. chap. xi. § 31 (Ibid. II. 209).

[148] Ibid. Book IX. chap. ii. § 6 (Ibid. II. 227).

[149] Dooms of Ine, cap. liii.

[150] Leg. Wallice, Lib. II. cap. xix. § 2 (Owen II. 842).

[151] Ea autem debita de quibus non constat, super mortuum probari debent, septima manu.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. vii. § 2. (Ed. Schilter.)—Sachsische Weichbild art. 67.

[152] Nove Constitutiones Dom. Alberti, p. 38.

[153] “Quod in sacramentis supradictorum testium veritas absque ullo dolo versata est.”—Leon. PP. IV. Epist. 5 (Migne, CXV. 664).

[154] Lünig Cod. Ital. Diplom. II. 1955.

[155] Maitland, Select Pleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts, pp. 7, 10, 18, 32, 36, 37, 47, 83, 137, 140, 141, 142, 144, 151, 157, 173.

[156] Si burgensis calumniatus præteriit ætatem pugnandi, et hoc essoniaverit in sua responsione, non pugnabit. Sed juramento duodecim talium qualis ipse fuerit, se purgabit.—L. Burgorum cap. 24, §§ 1, 2.

[157] Concil. Remens. ann. 1119 (Harduin. VI. 1986).

[158] On þone Drihten se að is clæne and unmæne þe N. swor.—Thorpe’s Ancient Laws, I. 180-1.

[159] Hoc quod appellatus juravit, verum juravit. Sic Deus, etc.—Formul. Vet. in L. Longobard (Georgisch, 1275).

[160] Per aquetz santz ver dits.—Fors de Béarn, Rubr. LI. art. 165.

[161] Du serment que Guillaume a juré, sauf serment a juré, ainsi m’aist Dieu et ses Sainctz.—Ancienne Cout. de Normandie, chap. lxxxv. (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 54).

[162] Nobis adhæc Deo coram periculosum esse videtur, ejus, cujus interest, jusjurandum purgatorium edendo præeunte, omnes (ab eo productos testes) iisdem ac ille conceptis verbis jurare, incerti quamvis fuerint, vera ne an falsa jurent. Nos legibus illatum volumus ut ille, cujus interest, jusjurandum conceptis verbis solum præstet, cæteri vero ejus firment juramentum adjicientes se nequid verius, Deo coram, scire, quam jurassent.—Jarnsida, Mannhelge, cap. xxxvii.—The passage is curious, as showing how little confidence was really felt in the purgation, notwithstanding the weight attached to it by law.

[163] Leges Gulathingenses, Thiofa-Bolkr, c. xiii.

[164] Credo Norigaudum istum Eduensem episcopum vera jurasse, sicut me Deus adjuvet.—Hugo. Flaviniac. Lib. II.

[165] Anomalous Laws, Book VII. chap. i. § 18 (Owen, II. 135).

[166] L. Alaman. Tit. vi.

[167] L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 28.

[168] Anomalous Laws, Book IX. chap. vi. § 4; chap. xvii. § 5.—cf. Book VI. chap. i. § 50 (Owen. II. 235, 255, 113).

[169] Marculf. Lib. I. Formul. xxxviii.

[170] L. Frisionum Tit. xiv.

[171] Dooms of King Edward, cap. iii.

[172] Keyser’s Religion of the Northmen, Pennock’s Transl. p. 246.

[173] Quantum in conspectu hominum purgari poterat.—Ivon. Epist. liv.

[174] Hugo Flaviniac. Lib. II.

[175] Gratian. c. 17, Caus. II. Q. v.

[176] L. Baioar. Tit. XIV. cap. i. § 2.

[177] L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. ix. § 37.

[178] Institutions Judiciaires, I. 308.

[179] Ut propter suam nequitiam alii qui volunt. Dei esse non se perjurent, nec propter culpam alienam semetipsos perdant.—L. Alaman. Tit. xlii. § 1.

[180] Quod pro anima sua timendo, non præsumat sacramentalis esse.—L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 14.

[181] Othlon. Vit. S. Bonif. Lib. II. c. xxi.—“Vos soli juratis, si vultis; nolo ut omnes hos congregatos perdatis.”—Boniface, however, did not weakly abandon the cause of the church. He freely invoked curses on the greedy brethren, which being fulfilled on the elder, the terror-stricken survivor gladly relinquished the dangerous inheritance.

[182] L. Salic. Tit. I. §§ 3, 4.

[183] L. Frisionum Tit. X.

[184] Capit. Pippini ann. 793 § 15.—Capit. Car. Mag. incert. anni c. x. (Martene Ampl. Collect. VII. 7).

[185] Celest. PP. III. ad Brugnam Episc. (Baluz. et Mansi, III. 382).

[186] Cod. Vatican. No. 3845, Gloss, ad L. 2 Lombard. II. 51, apud Savigny, Geschichte d. Rom. Recht. B. iv.—I owe this reference to the kindness of my friend J. G. Rosengarten, Esq.

[187] Capit. Car. Mag. ann. 794 § 7.

[188] Hugo, Flaviniac. Lib. II. ann. 1100. Norgaud, however, was reinstated next year by quietly procuring, as we have already seen, two brother prelates to take the oath with him, in the absence of his antagonists.

[189] Et si quis de quinque juvantibus defecerit, accusatus debit tres libras, et percusso decem solidos.—Leg. Secund. Noviportus (Oudegherst).

[190] Hostiensis Aureæ Summæ Lib. v. _De Purg. Canon_, § 7.—“Sicut puniretur de crimine de quo impetebatur si convinceretur considerato modo agendi, sic punietur si in purgatione deficiat.”

[191] L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 34.—Qua ex re mos detestabilis in Italia, improbusque non imitandus inolevit, ut sub legum specie jurejurando acquireret, qui Deum non timendo minime formidaret perjurare.

[192] L. Henrici I. cap. lxiv. § 1. “Malorum autem infestacionibus et perjurancium conspiracione, depositum est frangens juramentum, ut magis Dei judicium ab accusatis eligatur; et unde accusatus cum una decima se purgaret per eleccionem et sortem, si ad judicium ferri calidi vadat.” This cannot be considered, however, as having abrogated it even temporarily in England, since it is contradicted by many other laws in the same code, which prescribe the use of compurgators, and we shall see hereafter how persistently its use was maintained.

[193] Romances Antiguos Españoles. Londres, 1825, T. I. pp. 246-7. Cf. Dozy, Recherches sur l’Histoire, etc. de l’Espagne, Leipzig, 1881, II. 108.

[194] Le Roux de Lincy, Chants Historiques Français, I. 15.

[195] Glanville, Lib. I. cap. ix. Also, Lib. I. c. xvi., Lib. IX. c. i., Lib. X. c. v.

[196] “In aliis enim curiis si quis aliquid dixerit unde eum pœnituerit, poterit id negare contra totam curiam tertia manu cum sacramento, id se non dixisse affirmando” (Ibid. Lib. VIII. c. ix.).—In some other systems of jurisprudence, this unsophisticated mode of beclouding justice was obtained by insisting on the employment of lawyers, whose assertions would not be binding on their clients. Thus, in the Assises de Jerusalem (Baisse Court, cap. 133): “Et por ce il deit estre lavantparlier, car se lavantparlier dit parole quil ne doie dire por celuy cui il parole, celui por qui il parle et son conceau y pueent bien amender ains que le iugement soit dit. Mais se celuy de cui est li plais diseit parole qui li deust torner a damage, il ne la peut torner arieres puis quil la dite.” The same caution is recommended in the German procedure of the fourteenth century—“verbis procuratoris non eris adstrictus, et sic vitabis damnum” (Richstich Landrecht, cap. II. Cf. Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. art. 60; Lib. II. art. 14). The same abuse existed in France, but was restricted by St. Louis, who made the assertion of the advocate binding on the principal, unless contradicted on the spot (Établissements, Liv. II. chap. xiv.).

[197] Roger de Hoveden ann. 1194.

[198] Tunc vadiabit defendens legem se duodecima manu.—Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. iii. cap. 37, § 1.—Et si ad diem legis faciendæ; defuerit aliquis de XII. vel si contra prædictos excipi possit quod non sunt idonei ad legem faciendam, eo quod villani sunt vel alias idonei minus, tunc dominus incidet in misericordiam.—Ibid. § 3. So also in Lib. V. Tract. V. cap. xiii. § 3.

[199] Pike, History of Crime in England, I. 285.

[200] Gratian, c. 17, C. 11. Q. v.—“Deinde vero purgatores super sancta Dei evangelia jurabunt quod sicut ipsi credunt verum juravit.” Cf. c. 5 Extra, V. xxxiv.

[201] Summæ Stephani Tornacensis caus. II. Q. 5 (Schulte, 1891, p. 171).

[202] C. 7, Extra, V. xxxiv.

[203] Illi qui ad purgandam alicujus infamiam inducuntur, ad solum tenentur juramento firmare quod veritatem credunt eum dicere qui purgatur.—C. 13, Extra, V. xxxiv. Innocent also endeavored to put an end to the abuse by which ecclesiastics, notoriously guilty, were able to escape the penalty due their crimes, by this easy mode of purgation.—C. 15, eod. loc.

The formula as given about 1240 by St. Ramon de Peñafort is “Nos credimus quod ipse juravit verum, vel, verum esse quod juravit.”—Raymondi Summæ Lib. III. Tit. xxxi. § 5.

[204] The rapidity with which the study of the civil law diffused itself throughout the schools and the eagerness with which it was welcomed were the subject of indignant comment by the ecclesiastics of the day. As early as 1149 we find St. Bernard regretting that the laws of Justinian were already overshadowing those of God—“Et quidem quotidie perstrepent in palatio leges, sed Justiniani, non Domini” (De Consideratione, Lib. I. cap. iv.). Even more bitter were the complaints of Giraldus Cambrensis towards the end of the century. The highest of high churchmen, in deploring the decline of learning among the prelates and clergy of his age, he attributes it to the exclusive attention bestowed on the jurisprudence of Justinian, which already offered the surest prizes to cupidity and ambition, and he quotes in support of his opinion the dictum of his teacher Mainier, a professor in the University of Paris: “Episcopus autem ille, de quo nunc ultimo locuti sumus, inter superficiales numerari potuit, cujusmodi hodie multos novimus propter leges Justinianas, quæ literaturam, urgente cupiditatis et ambitionis incommodo, adeo in multis jam suffocarunt, quod magistrum Mainerium in auditorio scholæ suæ Parisius dicentem et damna sui temporis plangentem, audivi, vaticinium illud Sibillæ vere nostris diebus esse completum, hoc scilicet ‘Venient dies, et væ illis, quibus leges obliterabunt scientiam literarum’” (Gemm. Ecclesiast. Dist. II. cap. xxxvii.). This, like all other branches of learning, was as yet to a great extent in the hands of the clergy, though already were arising the precursors of those subtle and daring civil lawyers who were destined to do such yeoman’s service in abating the pretensions of the church.

It is somewhat singular to observe that at a period when the highest offices of the law were frequently appropriated by ecclesiastics, they were not allowed to perform the functions of advocates or counsel. See Horne’s Myrror of Justice, cap. II. sect. 5. There was good reason for prohibiting them from serving as judges, as Frederic II. did in 1235—“Idem erit laicus propter sententias sanguinum quas clerico scribere non liceat, et præterea ut si dilinquid in officio suo pena debita puniatur” (Nove Constitutiones Dom. Alberti, p. 46).

[205] Actor quod adseverat, probare se non posse profitendo, reum necessitate monstrandi contrarium non adstringit: cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit (Const. xxiii. C. de Probat. IV. 19).—Cum inter eum, qui factum adseverans, onis subiit probationis, et negantem numerationem, cujus naturali ratione probatio nulla est ... magna sit differentia (Const. x. C. de non numerat. IV. 30). It is a little curious to see how completely this was opposed to the principle of the early Common Law of England, by which in actions for debt “semper incumbit probatio neganti” (Fleta, Lib. II. cap. lxiii. § 11).

[206] La cosa que non es non se puede probar nin mostrar segunt natura.—Las Siete Partidas, P. III. Tit. xiv. l. 1.

[207] Though absent from the general laws of Spain, yet compurgation had been introduced as an occasional custom. We have seen it above (p. 49) in the Fuero de Balbás in 1135. The Fuero of Madrid in 1202 provides that a man suspected of homicide and other crimes, in the absence of testimony, can clear himself with six or twelve conjurators, according to the grade of the offence (Mem. de la Real. Acad. de la Historia, 1852). We shall see hereafter that it appears in the Fuero Viejo of Castile in 1356. The passage from the Romancero del Cid, quoted above, shows the hold it had on the popular imagination.

[208] Olim, II. 153, 237.

[209] Actes du Parlement de Paris, T. I. p. cccvii. (Paris, 1863).

[210] Actes du Parlement de Paris, T. I. p. 382.

[211] Statuunt ... se manu centesima nobilium se purgare, et ad huic benedicto juveni bis septem librarum milia pro sui rancoris satisfactione præsentare.—Wilelmi Egmond. Chron.

[212] Is qui reus putatur tertia manu se purgabit, inter quos sint duo qui dicentur denominati.—Du Cange s. v. _Juramentum_.

[213] Et li deffendans, sour qui on a clamet se doit deffendre par lui tierche main, se chou est hom II. hommes et lui, se chou est fame II. femmes et li à tierche.... “Tel sierment que Jehans chi jura boin sierment y jura au mien ensiant. Si m’ait Dius et chist Saint.”—Roisin, Franchises, etc. de la Ville de Lille, pp. 30, 35.

[214] Ibid. p. 51. The system was abrogated by a municipal ordinance of September, 1351, in accordance with a special ordonnance to that effect issued by King John of France in March, 1350.

The royal ordonnance declares that the oath was “en langage estraigne et de mos divers et non de legier a retenir ou prononchier,” and yet that if either party “par quelconques maniere faloit en fourme ou en langage ou que par fragilite de langhe, huirans eu, se parolle faulsist ou oubvliast, ou eslevast se main plus que li dite maniere acoustumee en requeroit ou quelle ne tenist fermement sen poch en se paulme ou ne wardast et maintenist pluiseurs autres frivoles et vaines chozes et manieres appartenans au dit sierment, selonc le loy de la dite ville, tant em parole comme en fait, il avoit du tout sa cause perdue, ne depuis nestoit rechus sur che li demanderes a claim ou complainte, ne li deffenderes a deffensce.”—Ibid. p. 390.

[215] Anc. Coutume de Normandie, chap. lxxxv. (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 53-4).

[216] Recherches de la France, Liv. IV. chap. iii. Concerning the date of this, see La Croix du Maine, s. v. _Estienne Pasquier_.

[217] Fors et Cost. de Béarn, Rubr. de Juramentz (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 1082).

[218] Lo jurament deu seguidor se fé JURAN PER aquetz sanctz bertat ditz exi que io crey.

[219] E si gelo negare e non gelo quisier probar, devel’ facer salvo con once Fijosdalgo e èl doceno, que non lo fiço (Fuero Viejo de Castiella, Lib. I. Tit. v. 1. 12). It will be observed that this is an unqualified recognition of the system of negative proofs.

[220] Du Cange, s. v. _Juramentum_.

[221] Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. xxiv.; cccix. § 4; cccxxix. §§ 2, 3; cccxxxix. § 3 (Edit. Schilteri).

[222] Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. 63.

[223] Sachsische Weichbild, art. 71, 72, 86, 40, 88.

[224] Goldast. Constitt. Imp. III. 446.

[225] Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, V. 221.

[226] Sique accusatus tanta ac tam gravi suspitione laboraret ut aliorum quoque purgatione necesse esset, in arbitratu stet judicis, si illi eam velit injungere, nec ne, qui nimirum compurgatores jurabunt, se credere quod ille illive qui se per juramentum excusarunt, recte vereque juraverint.—Constit. de Pace Publica cap. xv. § 1 (Goldast. Constitt. Imp. I. 541).

[227] Damhouder, Rerum Criminalium Praxis cap. xliv. No. 6 (Antwerp, 1601).

[228] Statut. Davidis II. cap. i. § 6.

[229] Jarnsida, Mannhelge & Thiofa-Balkr _passim_; Erfthatal cap. xxiv.; Landabrigtha-Balkr cap. xxviii.; Kaupa-Balkr cap. v., ix., etc.

[230] See Sporon & Finsen, Dissert. de Usu Juramenti juxta Leges Daniæ Antiquas, Havniae, 1815-17, P. I. pp. 160-1, P. II. pp. 206-8.

[231] Christiani V. Jur. Danic. Lib. i. c. xiv. § 8.

[232] Poteritque se tunc purgare cui crimen imponitur juramento XVIII. virorum.—Raguald. Ingermund. Leg. Suecorum Lib. i. c. xvi.

[233] Legg. Civil. Gustavi Adolphi Tit. X.

[234] Caroli XI. Judicum Regulæ, cap. xxxii.

[235] Ludewig. Reliq. MSS. T. VII. p. 401.

[236] Herb. de Fulstin Statut. Reg. Poloniæ, Samoscii, 1597, pp. 186-88, 465.

By the customs of Iglau, about the middle of the thirteenth century, a man could rebut with two conjurators a charge of assault with serious mutilation, and was subject to a fine of fourteen marks if he failed; accusations of complicity required only the oath of the accused.—Statuta Primæva Moraviæ, Brunæ, 1781, pp. 103-4.

[237] Bassani de Sacchi Jura Regni Croatiæ, Dalmatiæ et Sclavoniæ. Zagrabiæ, 1862, Pt. I. p. 182.

[238] Et sic major præsumptio vincit minorem. Si autem querens probationem habuerit, sicut instrumenta et chartas sigillatas, contra hujusmodi probationes non erit defensio per legem. Sed si instrumento contradicatur, fides instrumenti probabitur per patriam et per testes. Bracton, Lib. IV. Tract. vi. cap. 18, § 6.

The word “secta” is a troublesome one to legal antiquarians from its diverse significations. As used in the above text it means the supporters of the plaintiff’s case. Elsewhere we find it denoting the hue and cry, which all men were bound to follow; see Stubb’s Select Charters, pp. 256, 366, etc. “Facere sectam” also seems to have the sense of holding court (Ib. p. 303), whence it also derives a secondary meaning of jurisdiction (Baildon, Select Civil Pleas, I. 42).

[239] Fleta, Lib. II. c. lxiii. § 10. Sed si sectam [actor] produxerit, hoc est testimonium hominum legalium qui contractui inter eos habito interfuerint præesentes, qui a judice examinati si concordes inveniantur, tunc poterit [reus] vadiare legem suam contra petentem et contra sectam suam prolatam; ut si duos vel tres testes produxerit [actor] ad probandum, oportet quod defensio fiat per quatuor vel per sex; ita quod pro quolibet teste duos producat jurat [ores] usque ad xii.

[240] 38 Edw. III. St. I. cap. v. (Statutes at Large I. 319. Ed. 1769).

[241] 27 Eliz. cap. xix. § I.

[242] Jacob’s Review of the Statutes, 2d Ed. London, 1715, p. 532.

[243] I owe a portion of these references to a paper in the London “Jurist” for March, 1827, the writer of which instances the wager of law as an evidence of “that jealous affection and filial reverence which have converted our code into a species of museum of antiques and legal curiosities.”

[244] Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 2d ed., p. 758.

[245] I owe a transcript of these records to the kindness of the late General J. H. Lefroy, then Governor of Bermuda. The quaintness of the proceedings may justify the printing of the sentences.

Nov. Assizes, 1638.—“Arthur Thorne being presented by the minister and church wardens of Pembroke tribe [parish] upon suspition of incontinency with Elizabeth Jenour the wyfe of Mr. Anthony Jenour, was censured [sentenced] in case he could not purge himself to doe open penaunce in two churches.” He probably failed in his purgation, for Mrs. Jenour confessed her sin in open court and was referred to her minister for penance.

June Assizes, 1639. “The minister, church wardens, and sydesmen of Sandy’s Tribe doe present Mary Eldrington, the wyfe of Roger Eldrington, upon suspition of incontinency grounded on comon fame: upon which presentment she was censured to doe open penaunce in the church in case she could not purge herselfe by the oath of 3 women of credit in the Tribe.”

“Edward Bowly, presented upon suspition of incontinency with Anne, a negro woman, supposed to be the father of her bastard child, was put to his compurgators, and did thereupon purge himself, and the negro woman censured to receave 21 lashes at the whipping-post, which was executed upon her.”

“Edward Wolsey and Dorathie Penniston were presented upon common fame for suspition of incontinencie by the grand inquest, and also presented by the minister and churchwardens of Pembroke Tribe upon the like suspition, whereupon they were sentenced to doe penaunce in the church, standing in a whyte sheete during divine service, making confession of that their suspitious walking in case they could not purge themselves by their owne oathes and two sufficient compurgators.”

[246] Cooper’s Statutes at Large of South Carolina, Columbia, 1837, II. 403.

[247] Kilty’s Report on English Statutes, Annapolis, 1811, p. 140.

[248] Ego talis juro ... me firmiter credere quod talis non fuit Insabbatus, Valdensis, vel pauperum de Lugduno ... et credo firmiter eum in hoc jurasse verum.—Doctrina de modo procedendi contra Hæreticos (Martene, Thesaur. T. V. p. 1801).—This is the same as the form prescribed by the Council of Tarragona in 1242, where we learn, moreover, that the number of compurgators was prescribed by the inquisitor in each case (Aguirre, Concil. Hispan. IV. 193).

[249] Conc. Lateran. IV. can. iii.—Decret. Gregor. P. P. IX. (Harduin. VII. 163).

[250] Hartzheim Conc. Germ. III. 542-50.—Alberic. Trium Font. ann. 1233-4.—Gest. Treviror. c. 175.

[251] Jacob. Simancæ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. lvi. No. 3, 4 (Romæ, 1575).

[252] Simancæ, loc. cit. No. 31.—Villadiego, Fuero Juzgo, p. 318 _b_ (Madrid, 1600).—Both of these authorities stigmatize it as “fragilis et periculosa, cæca et fallax.”

[253] Simancæ, loc. cit. No. 12.

[254] Simancæ, loc. cit. No 17.

[255] Strype’s Ecclesiastical Memorials, I. 87.

[256] Reformator. Constant. Decretal. Lib. V. Tit. ii. cap. 1, 3 (Von der Hardt, Tom. I. P. XII. pp. 739, 742).

[257] Angeli de Clavasio Summa angelica, s. v. _Purgatio_.

[258] Baptistæ de Saulis Summa rosella, s. v. _Purgatio_.

[259] Institut. Jur. Canon. Lib. IV. Tit. ii. § 2.—Cf. Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 1591, Lib. IV. Tit. xiv. (Aguirre, VI. 322).

[260] P. Grillandi Tract. de Sortileg. Qu. 6, No. 14; Qu. 3, No. 36.—Decret. II. caus. xxx. q. 1, can. 2.—C. 7 Extra, Lib. IV. Tit. xv.

[261] Du Cange, loc. cit.

[262] Burnet, Reformation, Vol. II. p. 199 (Ed. 1681).

[263] Tit. LXXIV. of Herold’s text; Cap. Extravagant. No. XVIII. of Pardessus.

[264] L. Baioar. Tit. XVI. cap. i. § 2.

[265] Pactus pro Tenore Pacis, § 2, cf. § 5 (Baluze).

[266] Decreti Childeberti c. vii. (Baluze). This provision was not merely temporary. It is preserved in the Capitularies (Lib. VII. c. 257), whence it was carried into the Decretum of Ivo of Chartres in the twelfth century (Decr. P. xiii. c. 6; P. xvi. c. 358).

[267] Capit. Car. Mag. VI. ann. 806, c. xxiii. (Concil. Roman. Silvestri PP. I.).

[268] E li apelur jurra sur lui par VII. humes numez, sei siste main, que pur haur nel fait ne pur auter chose, si pur sun dreit nun purchacer.—Ll. Guillel. I. cap. xiv.

[269] Omnis tihla tractetur antejuramento plano vel observato.—Ll. Henrici I. Tit. lxiv. § 1. Anlejuramentum a compellante habeatur, et alter se sexto decime sue purgetur; sicut accusator precesserit.—Ibid. Tit. lxvi. § 8.

[270] Prof. J. B. Thayer in Harvard Law Review, Vol. V. pp. 47-51.

[271] C. Tribur. ann. 895 c. xxii.

[272] For de Morlaas, Rubr. xxxviii. art. 63.

[273] Bracton. Lib. IV. Tract. vi. cap. 18, § 6.

[274] Statuta Susatensia, No. 10 (Hæberlin, Analecta Medii Ævi, p. 509).—The same provision is preserved in a later recension of the laws of Soest, dating apparently from the middle of the thirteenth century (Op. cit. p. 520).

[275] Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. cccix. § 4 (Ed. Schilter).—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. III. art. 88.—Sachsische Weichb. art. 115.

[276] Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. cccxcviii. §§ 19, 20.

[277] Du Cange _sub voce_.

[278] Legg. Scan. Provin. Lib. V. c. 57 (Ed. Thorsen, p. 140).

[279] Ideo manus libro imponimus sacro, quod audivimus (crimen rumore sparsum), at nobis ignotum est verum sit nec ne.—Jarnsida, Mannhelge, cap. xxiv.

[280] Rabanis, Revue Hist. de Droit, 1861, p. 511.

[281] Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, II. 595.

[282] Freher. de Secret. Judic. cap. xvii, § 26.

[283] Anc. Cout. de Bretagne, Tit. VIII. art. 168.

[284] Thus, as late as the thirteenth century, the municipal law of Southern Germany, in prescribing the duel for cases destitute of testimony, says with a naïve impiety: “Hoc ideo statutum est, quod causa hæc nemini cognita est quam Deo, cujus est eandem juste decidere.” Early in the sixteenth century the pious Aventinus regretfully looks back upon the time when princes and priests, assembled to witness the combat, “divinam opem implorabant, beneficia memoriter commemorabant quæ in simili negotio Deus immortalis Christus servator noster ipsis pro sua benignitate atque clementia contulisset ... comprecabantur ut summa potestas in re præsenti, pollicita re, hactenus semper factitasset, comprobaret” (Aventini Annal. Baior. Lib. IV. cap. xiv. n. 28). Even as late as 1617, August Viescher, in an elaborate treatise on the judicial duel, expressed the same reliance on the divine interposition: “Dei enim hoc judicium dicitur, soli Deo causa terminanda committitur, Deo igitur authore singulare hoc certamen suscipiendum, ut justo judicio adjutor sit, omnisque spes ad solam summæ providentiam Trinitatis referenda est” (Viescher Tract. Juris Duellici Universi, p. 109). This work is a most curious anachronism. Viescher was a learned jurisconsult who endeavored to revive the judicial duel in the seventeenth century by writing a treatise of 700 pages on its principles and practice. He exhibits the wide range of his studies by citations from no less than six hundred and seventy-one authors, and manages to convey an incredibly small amount of information on the subject. Ephraim Gerhardt, moreover, taxes him with wholesale plagiarism from Michael Beuther’s _Disputatio de duello_ (Strassburg, 1609) and with false citations of authorities.—Eph. Gerhardi Tract. de Judicio Duellico, præfat.

[285] L. Baioar. Tit. XIV. c. i. § 2.

[286] Rymer, Fœdera, V. 198-200.

[287] Ayeen Akbery, II. 324.

[288] The early edicts directed against the duel proper (Ordonn. Charles IX., an. 1566; Henri IV., an. 1602—in Fontanon I. 665) refer exclusively to the noblesse, and to those entitled to bear arms, as addicted to the practice, while the judicial combat, as we shall see, was open to all ranks, and was enforced indiscriminately upon all.

[289] Chron. Domin. de Arkel (Matthæi Analect. VIII. 296). In 1336 a judicial duel was fought in Bavaria to decide a similar question—the right of two nobles to a coat of arms.—Würdinger, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Kampfrechtes in Bayern, München, 1877, p. 14.

[290] Rymer, Fœdera, II. 226-9, 230-4, 239-40, 242-3.—Lünig. Cod. Ital. Diplom. II. 986.

[291] Ramon Muntaner, cap. lxxi. See also Pedro’s own brief account of the matter in a letter of June 20, 1283, to his nephew, the Infante Juan of Castile.—Memorial Histórico Español, 1851, T. II. p. 99.

[292] “Sub speculatoris supremi judicio terminatum.”—Rymer, Fœd. VII. 407.

[293] Du Bellay, Mémoires, Liv. III.—The letters are given by Juan de Valdés in the _Diálogo de Mercurio i Caron_ (Dos Diálogos, pp. 243, 247, 287.—Reformistas antiguos Españoles).

[294] An outlying fragment of the same belief is to be seen in the ancient Japanese practice of deciding knotty questions by the judicial duel (Griffis’s Mikado’s Empire, New York, 1876, p. 92). Even the most savage of existing races, the aborigines of Australia, have a kind of duel under certain rules by which private controversies are settled, and among the Melanesians the custom prevails, champions even being sometimes employed (Patetta, Le Ordalie, Torino, 1890, pp. 55, 60).

[295] Iliad. III. 277-323.

[296] Nicholaus Damascenus (Didot Frag. Hist. Græcor. III. 457).

[297] Liv. XXVII. 21.

[298] Senchus Mor, I. 251.

[299] Synod. S. Patricii ann. 456, c. 8.

[300] Anomalous Laws, Book XIV. chap. xiii. § 4 (Owen II. 623).

[301] Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 156.

[302] Königswarter, op. cit. p. 224; Patetta, pp. 158 sqq.; Eph. Gerhardi Tract. Jurid. de Judic. Duellico, c. ii. § 12.

[303] Saxon. Grammat. Hist. Dan. Lib. V.

[304] Islands Landnamabok, III. vii.; V. xii. xiii. See also II. vi. and xiii.

[305] Keyser’s Religion of the Northmen, Pennock’s Translation, p. 245-7.

[306] Tacit. de Mor. Germ. X. Du Cange refers to a passage of Paterculus as proving the existence of the judicial duel among the Germans (Lib. II. cap. 118), but it seems to me only to refer to the law of the strongest.

[307] Si tamen non potuerit adprobare ... et postea, si ausus fuerit, pugnet.—Leyden MS.—Capit. Extravagant. No. xxviii. of Pardessus.

[308] Gregor. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. VII. c. xiv.; Lib. X. c. x.—Aimoini Lib. IV. c. ii.

[309] Aimoini Lib. IV. cap. X.

[310] Quia absurdum et impossible videtur esse ut tam grandis causa sub uno scuto per pugnam dirimatur.—L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. §§ 1, 2, 3.

[311] L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. xxxv. §§ 4, 5.

[312] Gravis causa nobis esse comparuit, ut sub uno scuto, per unam pugnam, omnem suam substantiam homo amittat.... Quia incerti sumus de judicio Dei, et multos audivimus per pugnam sine justitia causam suam perdere. Sed propter consuetudinem gentis nostræ Longobardorum legem impiam vetare non possumus (L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. ix. § 23). Muratori states that the older MSS. read “legem istam,” in place of “impiam,” as given in the printed texts, which would somewhat weaken the force of Liutprand’s condemnation.