cent victims who unquestionably suffered in these
superstitious practices.

From the tenth to the twelfth century they were common. Hildebert,
bishop of Mans, being accused of high treason by our William Rufus, was
prepared to undergo one of these trials, when Ives, bishop of Chartres,
convinced him that they were against the canons of the constitutions of
the church, and adds, that in this manner _Innocentiam defendere, set
innocentiam perdere_.

An abbot of St. Aubin, of Angers, in 1066, having refused to present a
horse to the Viscount of Tours, which the viscount claimed in right of
his lordship, whenever an abbot first took possession of that abbey, the
ecclesiastic offered to justify himself by the trial of the ordeal, or
by duel, for which he proposed to furnish a man. The viscount at first
agreed to the duel; but, reflecting that these combats, though
sanctioned by the church, depended wholly on the skill or vigour of the
adversary, and could therefore afford no substantial proof of the equity
of his claim, he proposed to compromise the matter in a manner which
strongly characterises the times: he waived his claim, on condition that
the abbot should not forget to mention in his prayers himself, his wife,
and his brothers! As the _orisons_ appeared to the abbot, in comparison
with the _horse_, of little or no value, he accepted the proposal.

In the tenth century the right of representation was not fixed: it was a
question whether the sons of a son ought to be reckoned among the
children of the family, and succeed equally with their uncles, if their
fathers happened to die while their grandfathers survived. This point
was decided by one of these combats. The champion in behalf of the right
of children to represent their deceased father proved victorious. It was
then established by a perpetual decree that they should thenceforward
share in the inheritance, together with their uncles. In the eleventh
century the same mode was practised to decide respecting two rival
_Liturgies_! A pair of knights, clad in complete armour, were the
critics to decide which was the authentic.

"If two neighbours," say the capitularies of Dagobert, "dispute
respecting the boundaries of their possessions, let a piece of turf of
the contested land be dug up by the judge, and brought by him into the
court; the two parties shall touch it with the points of their swords,
calling on God as a witness of their claims;--after this let them