require twelve men of the neighborhood to give the facts under oath. This method of gaining information, by twelve sworn witnesses of the neighborhood, was continued under other kings.

Closely connected with the usage of gaining information through the medium of twelve witnesses, there grew up, in the hundred and the county courts, the practice of deciding disputes by the same agency. The sheriff called together twelve men of the neighborhood to decide by oath between rival claimants to an estate. In like manner, men were presented to the court for trial by the oath of twelve men of the neighborhood.

Trial by Ordeal. When a person was accused before the court by the oath of twelve neighbors, it was common to test the truth or falsity of the accusation by a method of trial called the ordeal. Of this there were various forms. Sometimes the accused person was thrown into deep water; and if he sank, he was held to be innocent. Or he was blindfolded, and compelled to walk over a space strewn with hot irons; and if he was not burnt, he was held to be innocent. Or his hands were thrust into hot water; and if he was not scalded, he was innocent.

The ordeal was looked upon as a method of determining the facts by divine agency, and was usually administered under the guidance of church officers; but in 1215 it was condemned by the church.

Trial by Battle. Both the English and the Normans were accustomed to trials by ordeal; but among the English there was also the method of deciding cases by twelve sworn witnesses. It was when other methods failed that the ordeal was ordered. The Normans had

a method of trial which was new to the English, and which they detested. This was trial by battle. Two men would fight in the presence of the court; and the case was decided by the result of the fight. Two stories, preserved to us from this period, give a vivid picture of the resistance of the English to the Norman method:

"At Leicester the trial by compurgation,1 the rough predecessor of trial by jury, had been abolished by the earls in favor of trial by battle. The aim of the burgesses was to regain their old justice, and in this a touching incident at last made them successful. It chanced that two kinsmen, Nicholas, the son of Acon, and Geoffrey, the son of Nicholas, waged a duel about a certain piece of land, concerning which a dispute had arisen between them; and they fought from the first to the ninth hour, each conquering by turns. Then one of them, fleeing from the other till he came to a certain little pit, as he stood on the brink of the pit, and was about to fall therein, his kinsman said to him, Take care of the pit; turn back, lest thou shouldst fall into it.' Thereat so much clamor and noise was made by the bystanders, and those who were sitting around, that the Earl heard these clamors as far off as the castle, and he enquired of some how it was there was such a clamor; and answer was made to him that two kinsmen were fighting about a certain piece of ground, and that one had fled till he reached a certain little pit, and that as he stood over the pit and was about to fall into it, the other warned him. Then the townsmen, being moved with pity, made a covenant with the Earl that

1 By witnesses or jurors.

6

they should give him threepence yearly for each house on High Street that had a gable, on condition that he should grant to them that twenty-four jurors, who were in Leicester from ancient times, should from that time forward discuss and decide all pleas they might have among themselves." - Green's History of the English People.

The other incident is from the history of St. Edmundsbury, and gives an insight into the way in which the English method of trial by compurgation, preserved or regained in English towns, was extended to the surrounding country. The townsmen of St. Edmundsbury were living in the enjoyment of the right of trial by compurgation, while just outside the walls of the town. the Norman method of trial by battle prevailed. A man by the name of Kebel was tried by battle, and the battle went against him. He was accordingly condemned and hanged just outside the walls of the town. It seems that Kebel's neighbors knew that he was innocent, and the townsmen said, "Had Kebel been a dweller within the borough, he would have got his acquittal from the oaths of his neighbors, as our liberty is." The monks who were lords of the estate were thereupon moved to extend the same liberties to their

tenants.

Grand and Petit Juries. As trial by battle was discontinued, and the ordeal was condemned by the church, the custom became universal of forming a jury of twelve, to decide upon the guilt or innocence of one presented for trial. This body was called a Petit Jury in distinction from the larger body, which made the accusation or indictment, and received the name

of Grand Jury. The grand jury consisted at first of twenty-four, but afterwards of twenty-three members, of whom twelve were required to make an indictment.

Changes in the Jury. The grand jury has been little changed, but the petit jury has been greatly changed. At first the twelve were chosen because they were supposed to be acquainted with the accused and the evidence, and they decided the case upon their own knowledge. If the original twelve were not agreed, others were added until twelve were found who would pronounce in favor of the guilt or the innocence of the accused. Afterwards, in the time of Edward III., 1327, witnesses were added to the jury, not to unite with them in the verdict, but to give evidence. About a hundreds years later, the witnesses were no longer added to the jury, but were examined and cross-examined in open court. Jurymen continued to use their own knowledge of the facts in making up their minds. It was not until three hundred years later still that jurors were required to decide, not upon their own knowledge, but wholly upon evidence given in open court.

Jurymen as Representatives. — In the old popular courts of the hundred and shire the representatives spoke for the entire community. To be condemned by the county court was to be condemned by the county. The jury came to be a means by which the voice of the court was expressed. Juries continued to represent the community after the county court was reorganized and all other representatives had been displaced by justices of the peace. In course of time, grand juries were composed chiefly of country gentlemen, and the trial, or petit jury, was left to the common freemen. Probably

a large part of the devotion of Englishmen to trial by jury is due to the fact that, for centuries, the jury furnished the only means by which the ordinary citizen could share in important governmental business. The jury system was transplanted to America, and is still maintained with some modifications. Some of the states have abolished the grand jury; in some a grand jury may be composed of only five persons. In some of the states juries of a less number than twelve are authorized in some of the lower courts; and in some the jury is not required to be unanimous in order to form a verdict.

CHAPTER XVI.

MINISTERIAL OFFICERS.

Reeves. Of the officers who serve our courts and execute their orders, the most familiar are the constable and the sheriff. These, like the courts themselves, have come down to us from the distant past. In the ancient English township, the headman was called the tûngerefa, or town reeve. Where townships had developed into boroughs, the headman was called the head borough, or borough reeve. In the hundred, the headman was the hundred reeve. In the county or shire court, the chief man was the shire reeve, which title was early shortened into sheriff. These officers in early times had a variety of duties.

Constable. With the Norman lords and kings from France, came into England the name constable, which