Armour in Norwich Castle. Trial by combat remained a legal way to settle certain disputes until as late as 1833, an oversight that no one had dared to exploit for hundreds of years before Abraham Thornton used it in on November 17th, 1817, as a last, desperate throw of the dice. It was an ideal solution for Thornton: Mary’s brother was too slight of build to pose any kind of threat, and Abraham’s alibi (involving some tight scheduling and some contradictory village clocks) was too shaky to withstand the scrutiny of another jury.
Part 1 of 2
ON the 6th of November the appellant [William Ashford], attended by four counsel, appeared in court, when the proceedings were adjourned to the 17th, by the desire of the prisoner’s counsel; and on that day the prisoner demanded trial by “wager of battle.”*
The folly of thus admitting that ‘right should follow might’ was particularly obvious in this case, for whilst the appellee was an athletic man of great muscular power, the appellant was of a delicate frame, and quite unequal to a personal combat with such an antagonist.
The revival of this obsolete law gave rise to much argument on both sides, and it was not until the 16th of April, 1818, that the decision of the Court was given upon the question. The learned judges gave their opinions seriatim* and the substance of the judgment was that the law must be administered as it stood, and that therefore the prisoner was entitled to claim trial by battle; but the Court added that the trial should be granted only “in case the appellant should show cause why the defendant should not depart without delay.”*
* Wager of battle is another term for trial by combat. As a way of judging guilt or innocence, it had been frowned on in legal circles since at least 1190: but see The Duel of the Kings. There were elaborate rituals to be observed. “The appellee pleads Not Guilty, and throws down his glove, and declares he will defend the same by his body; the appellant takes up the glove, and replies that he is ready to make good the appeal, body for body.” (This is the origin of the phrase, ‘throw down a gauntlet’, meaning ‘issue a challenge’.) The two parties make oaths on the Bible before belabouring one another with horn-tipped batons, from sunrise to sunset if necessary. Trial by battle was abolished at last in 1833.
* That is, in turn, one after another.
* That is, the judge would let the combat go ahead only if the appellant, William Ashford, insisted that Thornton stay and fight. William, very sensibly, let Thornton go; but the price of that was Thornton’s absolute acquittal regarding this charge and all other charges involved in it, including rape.
Précis
In 1817, Abraham Thornton was charged with the murder of Mary Ashcroft. His acquittal shocked the country, but a fresh trial was halted after Thornton astonished everyone by challenging Mary’s brother William to trial by combat. In April 1818 the courts ruled the challenge legal, but reminded William (who was not physically strong) that he could simply let Thornton go. (58 / 60 words)
Part Two
‘La Walse’ (the Waltz), by James Gillray (1756-1815), drawn in 1810. The waltz was new to England at that time, and some considered each couple’s intimate hold perilously seductive. Mary Ashford met Abraham Thornton at a country dance in Tyburn near Birmingham on May 26th, 1817, and in the small hours they took a walk in the countryside. To Mary, Abraham was a stranger; but she was no stranger to him. “I have already been intimate with her sister” he was overheard to boast at the dance “and I will have connexion with her, though it cost me my life”. Mary was in good spirits when she called briefly on Hannah Cox, a friend in Erdington, at four. Her body was later found dumped in a hollow, bloodied, partly dressed and showing evidence of sexual intercourse.
On the 20th, time having been asked by the appellant’s counsel, the matter was finally disposed of, the judgment of the Court being “that the defendant be discharged from the appeal, and that he be allowed to go forth without bail.”
Though the rigid application of the letter of the law a second time saved this wretched man from punishment, nothing could remove from the public mind the conviction of his atrocity. Shunned by all who knew him — his very name become an object of terror — he, in a few months, attempted to proceed to America; but the sailors of the vessel in which he was about to embark refused to go to sea with such a character on board. He, however, succeeded in a subsequent attempt by disguising himself, and thus was his country relieved from the presence of one who was more than suspected of as large a load of moral crime as ever disgraced it in the form of a human being.
Précis
William unwillingly declined the challenge, and Abraham Thornton walked free. He did not, however, find the the bar of public opinion so forgiving. An outcast in England, he tried to emigrate to the USA, but no ship would take him. Only after he had adopted a false identity could he book his passage, and start a new life abroad. (59 / 60 words)
