summon his accuser to a wager of battle, or
trial by single combat. In vain was his
right to do so questioned by the adverse
counsel on the plea that the law of trial by
battle was obsolete, not having been
employed for some two centuries. The Lord
Chief Justice Ellenborough at once decided
that as the act had never been repealed, it
still formed part of the law of the land. So,
Thornton being a powerful athletic fellow,
and his accuser—who was, by the bye, the
brother of the murdered girl—a weak stripling
not more than twenty years of age, the
latter declined the proffered combat, and the
suspected murderer was set at liberty; a
result which, judging from the reported
circumstances of the case, and the evidence
against him, would hardly have been
probable but for his opportune digging up of
this long-forgotten law.

The unexpected termination of this trial
led to the bringing into parliament the
following year, of a bill, " to abolish all appeals
of murder, treason, felony, or other offences,
and wager of battle, or joining issue, and
trial by battle in writs of right."

The wager of battle, like the old ordeals of
fire, water, touching the murdered body, and
other extraordinary and now obsolete modes
of finding out the better or worse man, of
course originated in the superstitious belief
that Providence would in all cases give
the victory to him who had the right upon
his side; yet, in spite of this belief, we find
some rather singular regulations provided
to guard against the battle going too
obviously wrong. Such, for instance, as that a
party detected in the very commission of the
act alleged against him, or under
circumstances that left no possible doubt of his
guilt, could not claim the right of trial by
combat. It would have been so very
awkward if he had been victor after all.

One important difference, however, existed
in the conduct of the civil and criminal cases.
In criminal matters, the accuser and accused
met on the field, and fought it out in person;
in civil suits the parties fought by proxy.
Each employed a sort of physical force
barrister. The reason for this, as given by
Judge Blackstone, is, that if any party to
the suit dies, the suit must abate, and
be at an end for the present; and therefore
no judgment could be given for the
lands in question, if either of the parties
were slain in battle. Another reason was,
that no person should be allowed to claim
exemption from this mode of trial in a
civil action, while there were many
circumstances under which the accused party in a
criminal charge, was deprived of his choice
of trial, and compelled to submit the inquiry
to a jury. The fact of the accuser being a
female, or under age, or above the age of
sixty, or in holy orders, or a peer of the
realm, or any one expressly privileged from
the trial by battle, by some charter of the
king (as were the citizens of London amongst
others), or labouring under some material
personal defect, as blindness or loss of a
limb: any of these, were sufficient ground
for refusing the wager of battle.

A brief account of the solemnities observed
on the occasion of judicial duels may prove
interesting. In a civil trial of a writ of right
—by which it was sought to obtain possession
of lands or tenements, in the occupation of
another—the tenant pleaded the general issue,
that is to say, that he had more right to hold
than the demandant had to recover, and
offered to prove it by the body of his
champion. This offer was accepted, the
champion was produced, who throwing down
his glove as a gage or pledge, waged or
stipulated battle, with the champion of opposing
party. The latter accepted the challenge
by picking up the glove.

A piece of ground, sixty feet square, was set
out, enclosed with lists, with seats erected for
the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas;
who presided at these trials in their full
scarlet robes, and a bar was prepared for
the learned serjeants-at-law. As soon as
the Court had assembled, at sun-rising,
proclamation was made for the parties and
their champions. These were introduced
by two knights, and dressed in coats of
armour, with red sandals, bare-legged from
the knee downwards, bare-headed, and
with bare arms to the elbows. The
weapons they were furnished with, though
formidable were not deadly. Indeed a
fatal termination to these civil combats
was rarely if ever known. They were
armed only witk batons, or staves of an ell
long, and each carried a four-cornered
leathern shield .

On their arrival in the lists, the champion
of the tenant took his adversary by the
hand, and made oath that the tenements in
dispute were not the property of the demand-
ant, the champion of the claimant in precisely
the same form, swore in answer that they
were. Next, both champions took an oath
that they had not made use of any sorcery
or enchantment to assist them in the fight.
The usual form of this was as follows:
"Hear this, ye justices, that I have this
day neither eat nor drank, nor have upon
me neither bones, stones, nor grass (! ) nor
any enchantment, sorcery, nor witchcraft,
whereby the law of God may be abased, or
the law of the devil may be exulted. So help
me God and his Saints."

Then the fight commenced, and they were
bound to fight the whole day through, until
the stars appeared, or until one was beaten.
If the victory could be achieved either by the
death of a champion (a very rare occurrence),
or by either proving recreant; that is by yield-
ing, and pronouncing the horrible word Craven;
a word of no absolute meaning; " but," says
Blackstone, " a horrible word indeed to the
vanquished champion, since as a punishment