By the German law of the same period, the privilege of reversing a sentence by the sword existed, but accompanied with regulations which seem evidently designed to embarrass, by enormous trouble and expense, the gratification of the impulse which disappointed suitors would have to establish their claims in such manner. Thus, by the Suabian law, it could only be done in the presence of the sovereign himself, and not in that of the immediate feudal superior;[349] while the Saxon code requires the extraordinary expedient of a pitched battle, with seven on each side, in the king’s presence.[350] It is not a little singular that the feudal law of the same period has no allusion to the custom, all appeals being regularly carried to and heard in the court of the suzerain.[351] CHAPTER IV. CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN THE JUDICIAL DUEL. Thus carefully moulded in conformity with the popular prejudices or convictions of every age and country, it may readily be imagined how large a part the judicial combat played in the affairs of daily life. It was so skilfully interwoven throughout the whole system of jurisprudence that no one could feel secure that he might not, at any moment, as plaintiff, defendant, or witness, be called upon to protect his estate or his life either by his own right hand or by the club of some professional and possibly treacherous bravo. This organized violence assumed for itself the sanction of a religion of love and peace, and human intelligence seemed too much blunted to recognize the contradiction. There was, in fact, no question which might not be submitted to the arbitrament of the sword or club. If Charlemagne, in dividing his vast empire, forbade the employment of the wager of battle in settling the territorial questions which might arise between his heirs,[352] the prohibition merely shows that it was habitually used in affairs of the highest moment, and the constant reference to it in his laws proves that it was in no way repugnant to his general sense of justice and propriety.