Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1866-10-25
Trial by Ordeal.

AAA 'hS N"AiN 81 u hAOASAh LII
rope the absurd practice of tria
by ordeal was held in high esteem
The chief modes were by fire, b,
water, by walking blindfold amonI
heated piowshares, and by swal
lowing consecrated bread. Th,
last, styled by Muratorithe .jutlic
8mR papi8 ct casei, and Introduce
about the time of Pope Eugene
was simple enough. A piece OF
bread or cheese, of about an ounce
in weight, was blessed by the priest
and given to the accused person
who was to try and swallow it, af
ter first praying OF the Almighty
that it might choke him, cause con.
vulsions, paleness, &C., if he were
guilty. .s.a.e
Blackstone remarks, that the
resemblance of this custom still
exists in certain phrases of the
common people, as MAY this NOR.
sci be my last" "May be choEed
if it is So" and the ike. The
custom was evidently borrowed
from the Mosaic law, in which we
find it particularly prescribed.
Among the most remarkable
trials by ordeal in ancient history,
was that of Queen Emma. The
charges against her were preferred
by Robert, Archbishop of Canter-
bury. She was accused both Of
consenting to the death Of her son
Alfred, and of preparing poison for
her son Edward (the Confessor al
so.) Edward listened to those
charges, and his mother, according
to the law Of the land, claimed
the ordeal, or trial, by burning
plowshares. The Queen Dowa-
ger, on the night preceding the
trial, prayed for help In the Alb
bey OF st. Swithune, at Winches-
ter; and she passed the nine plow-
shares unhurt. Her innocence be-
ing held to be thus established,
the king seems to have been en-
joined penance for his credulity,
and the Archbishop to have fled the
kingdom; compelled either by the
law which held him to be a false
accuser, or by the odium Of his re-
puted guilt, or probably by the
prosecutions Of the Queen Dowa-
gers friends. a.a-
A mode of trial for murder got
into vogue at no very late period, I
which is, perhaps, quite as absurd !
as any we have mentioned. When
a person was murdered, it was
said that at the touch or OH the |
Of the murderer, blood |
would gush out of the body. In
various parts of Europe this was
actually held as aniJundoubted
proof Of guilt; and with the vul-
gar it is still very prevailing ar
ticle of belief that murder i'll this
way is sure to be found out
Beard says that the practice orig
mated in the following manner:
"Certain gentlemenin in Denmark,
being on an evening together in
IN inn, fello out among themselves,
md from words went to blows; the
candles being put out in this blind
ray, one Of them was stabbed by
l poniard. The murder was un-
Known by reason OF the number,
the gentlemen accused
of the kings of it, who
vas one Of them in the ROOM
Jhrsternus the Second, then king,
% find out the homicide, caused
hem all to come together into a
'oom; and standing around about
he dead corpse, he commanded
hat they should one after another
ay their right hand on the slain
,entleman's naked breast, swearing ;
hey had not killed him. The ;
Gentlemen did so, and no sign APP
,eared to witness against them;
he pursuiyant only renamed, I
Who CONDEMNED before his own {
:onscience) went first of all and I
,issea The dead mans feet; but as I
Don as he laid his hand on his |
,reast, the blood gushed forth in I
,reat abundance, 10th out of his
wound and nostrils, SO that, urged :
y this evident accusation, he con- ,
essed the murder, and by the
,ing's own sentence was immedi-
tely beheaded. Hereupon arose
hat practice (which isnow ordina-
Y In MANY places) of findinp,outi {