TRIAL BY BATTEL.
By Marland C. Hobbs.
TN this busy, bustling world of ours, so
fraught with activity and progress, an
apology seems the most fitting opening for
one who delves deep into the Year Books,
or pulls down from his shelves the dusty
volumes of Glanville and Bracton. At the
present day, however, when the jury system
is receiving so many hard knocks from law
yer and layman alike, it is interesting to turn
back the pages of history and read of a procedure in vogue with our early English an
cestors, especially when that procedure has
survived to our own nineteenth century.
Of the trial by ordeal, wager of law, and
trial by battel, — the three modes of trial
then in general use, — the last attracts our
attention.
Trial by battel — "an unchristian as well
as a most uncertain method of trial," as Sir
William Blackstone tersely describes it — was
introduced into England by the chivalrous,
battle-loving Normans. It was used in only
three cases, — trials of writs of right, appeals
of felony, and in the court of chivalry. In
the last two the parties appeared in person;
in the first, by champions. For the combat,
a level piece of ground was set out, sixty
feet square, enclosed with lists. On one
side sat the justices of the Court of Common
Pleas, attired in their scarlet robes, with the
learned sergeants of the law near by, to lend
dignity to the scene. When the court sat,
which in those early days was at sunrise
("Heaven save the mark! ), proclamation was
first made for the parties and their cham
pions. Then the champions, armed with
staves an ell long, and protected with leather
armor and leather targets, with red sandals
on their feet, and bare legs, arms, and head,
were escorted into the lists by two knights.
Having sworn to the truth of the cause, and
having taken an oath against sorcery and
witchcraft, the champions then fell upon
each other, bound to fight till the stars came out, or till one or the other was de feated or forced to cry " craven." If the combat turned out a drawn battle, the de mandant failed; for the tenant, having main tained his ground, could retain possession of his land. The excitement which was sometimes caused by these trials is shown by a curi ous case that took place at Northampton. The plot of ground marked out for the trial was guarded by soldiers. A great crowd sur rounded the field of battle, or perhaps one should say, the court of law. The cham pions appeared, and at the signal rushed at each other, bound to conquer or to die. At length, after a long struggle, both fell at the same moment. The friends of the tenant, who were out in great force, fearing that the issue might be against them, drew their swords, broke through the line of soldiers, and surrounded the two fallen men. The champion of the demandant was unable to rise, the horses were made to trample upon him, and when he was nearly beaten to a jelly he was proclaimed a recreant The soldiers were unable to cope with the crowd, and the justices left the grounds without any attempt to bring the proceeding to a legal termination. It was of such trials, perhaps, that Glanville, the great lawyer of Henry II., narvely admits that the " issue was not al ways in accordance with justice." This lawlessness, however, was very un common. The smoothness with which jus tice usually took its course is shown by the account of an important trial by battel in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the last reported trial of this nature in which the stake was the possession of land. At a certain day and place the champions were summoned to appear, " at which day and place," we read, " a list was made in an even and level
