Scotland under her early kings, Volume 1 (of 2) : $b a history of the kingdom to the close of the thirteenth centuryRobertson, Eben William
History
Scotland under her early kings, Volume 1 (of 2) : $b a history of the kingdom to the close of the thirteenth century
Robertson, Eben William
Scotland -- History -- To 1603
of the same country in the fourteenth, perhaps even in the following
century; during which period the kingdom, at any rate in its more
settled and civilized quarters, had decidedly retrograded rather than
advanced from its condition in the thirteenth century.
Amongst the regulations either introduced, or confirmed, by David, at
any rate beyond the Scots-water, the system of the _Voisinage_,
or _Visnet_, holds a prominent place; through which the older
forms of trial were gradually supplanted by the verdict of “the good
men and true” of the neighbourhood. Two principles seem to have lain at
the root of the whole system of justice--compurgation, and the ordeal.
As individuality was unrecognized, or helpless, the testimony of a
single witness was, except under certain circumstances, inadmissible;
though the oath of a man of rank, or of a churchman, after the church
had acquired worldly station, outweighed the oath of an inferior,
and seems often to have been reckoned according to the proportion of
their wergilds. Thus, amongst the Anglo-Saxons, two thanes appear
to have answered to twelve compurgators of lesser note; five thanes
to the triple oath of thirty in Wessex, though the number of the
triple oath varied in Wessex, Mercia, and the Danelage; and a similar
principle is traceable in the laws of the kindred Old Saxons of the
Continent.[296] _Compurgation_ was originally the duty of the
kin, and the nearest relatives who received, or paid, the wergild were
bound to come forward to take oath in behalf of any member of the
brotherhood, every accusation being thus supported or repelled. The
number of compurgators varied according to the importance of the case,
judgment going against the party whose kin declined to come forward, or
who failed in obtaining the required number. The accusation frequently
had to be repelled by a number of compurgators doubling the amount of
those who supported the charge; and on some occasions, to judge from
the custom of the Imperial Benefice, each party went on increasing
in number until the greater _tourbe_, the most numerous body of
compurgators, carried the day; or else a final appeal seems to have
been made to the ordeal.[297] Witnesses, in the modern sense of the
word, are seldom or never alluded to; had they been examined, and borne
testimony against a man, as at present, they would have legally had
to “bear the feud” of his kindred--a danger actually provided against
by one of William’s laws. In an age in which the duty of revenge was
amongst the paramount obligations of the family tie, the kindred, in
such a case, were only too ready to wreak their vengeance on all
through whom their kinsman suffered; an offence which was visited with
the highest fine for a breach of “the kings peace,” except the victim’s
kindred had consented to the deed--had, in other words, declined “to
bear the feud.” The extent to which the blood-feud was acknowledged, at
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account