20 English and Continental Backgrounds
those held responsible for him), which was the principal
means of compulsion, would, in many cases, amount to
little, and, as a last resort, the man who could be dealt
with in no other way was outlawed: that is, he was put
outside the protection of the law, so that he might be
killed at sight like a wild beast. Indeed the courts were
not so much thought of as compelling people to come to
them or abide by their decrees, but as places to which
parties could voluntarily resort, having a kind of gentle-
men's agreement to abide by the result. But supposing
both parties to the suit to be in court, the next step was
the taking of the fore-oath by the plaintiff. In this, he
stated his case according to a set form of words, and often
brought to swear with him a suit of witnesses—one or more
men who were ready in a preliminary way to support his
oath and thus establish a prima facie case. The fore-oath
was usually required except in case of manifest fact, like
a fresh wound. The fore-oath was followed by the equally
formal oath in rebuttal by the defendant. But it might
happen that he could not take it; the oath was a solemn
matter, and, if guilty, he might hesitate to stand before
his assembled neighbours and make the assertion which
carried with it a damning guilt.1 On the other hand,
plaintiff or defendant might trip in repeating their
formulae, and any mistake, at this or any other point in
the procedure, was fatal to the cause of the one making
it. But if the defendant took his oath successfully, the
case might end at that point, and in his favour. Thus
the solemnity of the oaths, the fact that the court con-
sisted of the neighbours of the parties whose affairs they
knew, and that the suit of witnesses often had especial
knowledge of the case would bring to an end many of the
less difficult points of dispute. But in the more baffling
cases it was now for the court to decide which party should
1 In connection with the importance of the oath throughout procedure, it
should be noted that at this time there was a greater gap between mere
lying and breaking an oath than now. Their great regard for oaths was
probably indicative, among other things, of their generally light regard for
the truth.