hree paces. If in consequence of his lord's
testimony being against him the triple ordeal was used, he had to plunge
his arm in water up to the elbow, or to carry the iron for nine paces. If
he were condemned to the ordeal by water, his death seems to have been
certain, since sinking was the sign of innocence, and if the prisoner
floated he was put to death as guilty. The other alternative, trial by
battle, which had been introduced by the Normans, was extremely unpopular
in England; it told hardly against men who were weak or untrained to arms,
or against the man of humble birth, who was allowed against his armed
opponent neither horse nor the arms of a knight, but simply a leathern
jacket, a shield of leather or wood, and a stick without knots or points.

At the beginning of the reign of Henry II, the Shire courts seem to have
been nearly as bad as they could be. Scarcely any attempt had been made,
perhaps none had till now been greatly needed, to improve a system which
had grown up in a dim and ruder past. The Norman kings, indeed, had
introduced into England a new method of deciding doubtful questions of
property by the "recognition" of sworn witness instead of by the English
process of compurgation or ordeal. Twelve men, who must be freemen and
hold property, were chosen from the neighbourhood, and as "jurors" were
sworn to state truly what they knew about the question in dispute, and
the matter was decided according to their witness or "recognition." If
those who were summoned were unacquainted with the facts, they were
dismissed and others called; if they knew the facts but differed in their
statement, others were added to their number, till twelve at least were
found whose testimony agreed together. These inquests on oath had
been used by the Conqueror for fiscal purposes in the drawing up of
Doomsday Book. From that time special "writs" from king or justice were
occasionally granted, by which cases were withdrawn from the usual modes
of trial in the local courts, and were decided by the method of
recognition, which undoubtedly provided a far better chance of justice
to the suitor, replacing as it did the rude appeal to the ordeal or to
battle by the sworn testimony of the chosen representatives, the good men
and true, of the neighbourhood. But the custom was not yet governed by any
positive and inviolable rules, and the action of the King's Court in this
respect was imperfectly developed, uncertain, and irregular