University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
collapse section23. 
expand section23.1. 
expand section23.2. 
expand section23.3. 
expand section23.4. 
expand section23.5. 
expand section23.6. 
expand section23.7. 
 23.8. 
 23.9. 
 23.10. 
expand section23.11. 
expand section23.12. 
expand section23.13. 
expand section23.14. 
 23.15. 
expand section23.16. 
expand section23.17. 
 23.18. 
expand section23.19. 
expand section23.20. 
expand section23.21. 
expand section23.22. 
 23.23. 
 23.24. 
expand section23.25. 
 23.26. 
expand section23.27. 
 23.28. 
expand section23.29. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

28.16. 16. Of the Ordeal or Trial by boiling Water, established by the
Salic Law.

The Salic law [80] allowed of the ordeal, or trial by boiling water; and as this trial was excessively cruel, the law found an expedient to soften its rigour. [81] It permitted the person, who had been summoned to make the trial with boiling water, to ransom his hand, with the consent of the adverse party. The accuser, for a particular sum determined by the law, might be satisfied with the oath of a few witnesses, declaring that the accused had not committed the crime. This was a particular case, in which the Salic law admitted of the negative proof.

This trial was a thing privately agreed upon, which the law permitted only, but did not ordain. The law gave a particular indemnity to the accuser, who would allow the accused to make his defence by a negative proof: the plaintiff was at liberty to be satisfied with the oath of the defendant, as he was at liberty to forgive him the injury.

The law contrived a middle course, [82] that before sentence passed, both parties, the one through fear of a terrible trial, the other for the sake of a small indemnity, should terminate their disputes, and put an end to their animosities. It is plain, that when once this negative proof was completed, nothing more was requisite; and, therefore, that the practice of legal duels could not be a consequence of this particular regulation of the Salic law.

Footnotes

[80]

As also some other laws of the Barbarians.

[81]

Tit. 56.

[82]

Ibid.