We find that William of Normandy, with his studious desire to preserve English institutions and protect Englishmen, in defining the procedure which should obtain if a Frenchman accused an Englishman, or _vice versa_, provided that the Englishman whom a Frenchman accused had the choice between battle and ordeal, but if the Englishman accused the Frenchman, the former had the right to compel the latter to join battle, or otherwise the Frenchman could swear away the charge, with oath helpers, according to Norman law. The Englishman was thus recognized as the Norman’s peer, but as was not accustomed to the ordeal by battle, he was given the choice of this procedure, if he preferred to avail himself of it, and the Norman, by a strict rule of justice, was required to purge himself, even though the Englishman would not fight. (Laws of William, c. 6; Forschungen, 328; I. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, pp. 89, 90.) For reference to the trial by battle, during the reigns of William I. to Henry II., see, I. Reeve’s History English Law, pp. 329, 331, and note citing the Mirror. [20] Neilson’s “Trial by Combat,” pp. 188, 189. [21] II. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, p. 632, Bracton, fol. 347. [22] Leg. Hen. 59, sec. 16. [23] I. St. Westm. c. 41. [24] Bracton, fol. 152, 153; Select Pl. Crown, pl. 109, 140, 190, 199. [25] Neilson’s “Trial by Combat,” pp. 56, 57. In the class of civil or criminal cases where the right of trial by battle obtained, when the plaintiff offered battle, the defendant was bound to accept the offer. Having offered to defend the charge preferred against him, in legal contemplation, he volunteered to defend it with his own body, or with the body of his freeman, “when and where the court shall consider that defend he ought.” He then tendered his gage and pledges to the court that on the given day set, he would perform the task assigned to him. (Year Book, 21, 22, II. Edw. I., pp. 9, 167; II. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, pp. 610, 611.) The champion, originally, was a witness and it was as such that he intervened. In a plea for land, he testified to having seen the seisin and that either he or his father saw the claimant in the possession of the land. (Neilson’s “Trial by Combat,” p. 48.) While hired champions were forbidden by the law, it became a very common practice and Neilson gives many such contracts in his interesting and thorough book, on “Trial by Combat,” pp. 48, 54.