It is, however, remarkable enough that the proof by duel, which in Scandinavia itself was abolished on the introduction of Christianity, should have maintained its ground for several centuries in England, which had long been Christianized. We might even say that down to the present times it has everywhere left perceptible traces in Europe. For what are duels but trials by battle, or sort of judgment of God? They were, however, much disseminated by chivalry, in the development of which the warlike Normans took so considerable a part. The ancient _holmgang_ was, as we have seen, called, both in Normandy and England, “duel.” The institution of the jury (“Nævninger,” or “Nævn”), before mentioned as originally Scandinavian, was established throughout England by the Normans in such a manner that it has maintained its place to our times. Under the first Norman kings we find traces of a more general employment of the jury, which was previously confined to the Danish part of England, where it continued to exist after the conquest by William. When, in the following century, _holmgang_ or trial by battle, began, in spite of the limitations it had undergone, to become too grievous in England, a law was published in 1164, that a jury of twelve knights, chosen by four knights of the district, should be substituted in its place. Thus at its first general establishment in England the jury had much the same form as it possessed in earlier times in the Danish part of the kingdom. The provision that the jury should be composed of knights soon fell to the ground. Subsequently, after the ordeal by red-hot iron, or the judgment of God, had been abolished (in the year 1219), it was appointed, in the reign of Henry the Third, that the accused, who might previously have liberated himself by that ordeal, should submit his case to the decision of twelve _Nævninger_, or jurymen. In this manner an influence was secured to the jury in England, which has since been continually increasing; trial by jury having become, as it were, the central point of the judicial system in that country. The English themselves, with just reason, regard the jury as a wise and happy institution, which has much contributed to develope the excellence of the national character, and to maintain the free constitution of their country. What is more, foreigners pass the same judgment on it; and it especially deserves to be remembered, that at the present moment, after the introduction of popular freedom into the Scandinavian North, its people are seeking to re-establish the native _Nævn_, or jury, which formerly crossed the seas with the conquerors of England and Normandy, and which has victoriously stood the trial of centuries in those countries.