"The customs of St. Sebastien in Guipuscoa, allowed an odd kind of proceeding, resembling the assessment of damages by the verdict of a jury. The ravisher was to pay the price of virginity, or he was to marry the object of his ungovernable passion; which punishment, as the charter wisely observes, 'is fully equal to a fine.' But if she, who had been a maid, was unworthy of becoming his wife, he was to provide her with such a husband as she might have reasonably expected to have obtained previous to her mishap, 'according to the estimation of the alcalde, and of twelve good men of St. Sebastien.' "The fullest directions concerning the use of the ordeal are contained in the charter of Molina. Don Molrique de Lara incorporated the town of Molina, the seigniory of the noble house of Lara, in the year 1152. His charter may be quoted as the most valuable record concerning the ancient municipal jurisprudence of Castile which has yet been published, as it displays the entire constitution and government of a Castilian town. ... Fines, according to the old Gothic law, were enacted at Molina for wounds and maims. The accuser was to support his charge by three '_vecinos_' or burghers of the town, if the offence was committed within its walls. {252} Two _vecinos_ sufficed if without. And, in default of full proof, the culprit either swore with twelve _vecinos_, or fought with the accuser; but the latter had the choice of the ordeal. ... When a murder had been committed, if one of those engaged in the fray took the guilt on his own head, saying, '_I killed him_,' the others were 'to save themselves with twelve true burghers,'--_los otros salvense con doce vecinos derecheros_. It might happen, that none would confess the crime; and as all were then equally liable to suspicion, the relations of the dead man were at liberty to select any one as the murderer, 'just as they thought fit;' after which the supposed murderer named eleven relations of the slain, and these, together with the accuser, swore to his being guilty or not guilty. Unanimity was required; and if one or two would not swear, that is to say, if they could not agree with the majority, each one who was so dissentient swore with twelve, that neither he, nor any one for his use, had received any bribe; then he was discharged. But if the defendant did not 'fall' by the withdrawing of his juror, he was at liberty to name another. This proceeding is remarkable; a new aspect is given to the ordeal by calling in the compurgators to swear with the accuser instead of the accused; and in this form it is, perhaps, more closely assimilated to a jury-trial. It may be observed, that a practice once prevailed in England of withdrawing the dissentient jurors, and replacing them by others, till an unanimous verdict was obtained."