boundary. The district is a vast level except in the N. and N.W., where it undulates, and gradually assumes a rugged appearance as it approaches the mountains and forests of Nepal. Wide uncultivated tracts cover its north-western corner; the southern and western parts are carefully cultivated, and teem with an active agricultural population. The principal rivers are the Gandak, navigable all the year round, the Buri Gandak, Panch Nadi, Lalbagia, Koja and Teur. Old beds of rivers intersect Champaran in every direction, and one of these forms a chain of lakes which occupy an area of 139 sq. m. in the centre of the district. Champaran, with the rest of Bengal and Behar, was acquired by the British in 1765. Up to 1866 it remained a subdivision of Saran. In that year it was separated and formed into a separate district. The administrative headquarters are at Motihari (population, 13,730); Bettia is the centre of a very large estate; Segauli, still a small military station, was the scene of a massacre during the Mutiny. Champaran was the chief seat of indigo planting in Behar before the decline of that industry. There are about 40 saltpetre refineries. The district suffered severely from drought in 1866 and 1874, and again in 1897. In the last year a small government canal was opened, and a canal from the Gandak has also been constructed. The district is traversed almost throughout its length to Bettia by the Tirhoot state railway. A considerable trade is conducted with Nepal.
CHAMPEAUX, WILLIAM OF [Gulielmus Campellensis] (c. 1070–1121), French philosopher and theologian was born at Champeaux near Melun. After studying under Anselm of Laon and Roscellinus, he taught in the school of the cathedral of Notre Dame, of which he was made canon in 1103. Among his pupils was Abelard. In 1108 he retired into the abbey of St Victor, where he resumed his lectures. He afterwards became bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, and took part in the dispute concerning investitures as a supporter of Calixtus II., whom he represented at the conference of Mousson. His only printed works are a fragment on the Eucharist (inserted by Jean Mabillon in his edition of the works of St Bernard), and the Moralia Abbreviata and De Origine Animae (in E. Martène’s Thesaurus novus Anecdotorum, 1717, vol. 5). In the last of these he maintains that children who die unbaptized must be lost, the pure soul being denied by the grossness of the body, and declares that God’s will is not to be questioned. He upholds the theory of Creatianism (that a soul is specially created for each human being). Ravaisson-Mollien has discovered a number of fragments by him, among which the most important is the De Essentia Dei et de Substantia Dei; a Liber Sententiarum, consisting of discussions on ethics and Scriptural interpretation, is also ascribed to Champeaux. He is reputed the founder of Realism. For his views and his controversy with Abelard, see Scholasticism and Abelard.
See Victor Cousin, introduction to his Ouvrages inédits d’Abélard (1836), and Fragments pour servir à l’histoire de la philosophie (1865); G. A. Patru, Wilhelmi Campellensis de natura et de origine rerum placita (1847); E. Michaud, Guillaume de Champeaux et les écoles de Paris au XIIe siècle (2nd ed., 1868); “William of Champeaux and his Times” in Christian Observer, lxxii. 843; B. Hauréau, De la philosophie scolastique (Paris, 1850); Opuscula in J. P. Migne’s Patrologia, clxiii.
CHAMPERTY, or Champarty (Lat. campi partitio, O. Fr. champ parti), in English law, a bargain between a plaintiff or defendant in a cause and another person, to divide the land (campum partiri) or other matter sued for, if they prevail, in consideration of that person carrying on or defending the suit at his own expense. It is a misdemeanour punishable by fine or imprisonment. It differs only from maintenance (q.v.), in that the recompense for the service which has been given is always part of the matter in suit, or some profit growing out of it. So an agreement by a solicitor not to charge costs on condition of retaining for himself a share of the sums recovered would be illegal and void. It is not, however, champerty to charge the subject-matter of a suit in order to obtain the means of prosecuting it.
See Fifth Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners, pp. 34-9.
CHAMPION (Fr. champion, Late Lat. campio from campus, a field or open space, i.e. one “who takes the field” or fights; cf. Ger. Kampf, battle, and Kämpfer, fighter), in the judicial combats of the middle ages the substitute for a party to the suit disabled from bearing arms or specially exempt from the duty to do so (see Wager). Hence the word has come to be applied to any one who “champions,” or contends on behalf of, any person or cause. In the laws of the Lombards (lib. ii. tit. 56 §§ 38, 39), those who by reason of youth, age or infirmity could not bear arms were allowed to nominate champions, and the same provision was made in the case of women (lib. i. tit. 3 § 6, tit. 16, §2). This was practically the rule laid down in all subsequent legislation on the subject. Thus the Assize of Jerusalem (cap. 39) says: “These are the people who may defend themselves through champions; a woman, a sick man, a man who has passed the age of sixty, &c.” The clergy, too, whether as individuals or corporations, were represented by champions; in the case of bishops and abbots this function was part of the duties of the advocatus (see Advocate). Du Cange gives instances of mercenary champions (campiones conductitii), who were regarded as “infamous persons” and sometimes, in case of defeat, were condemned to lose hand or foot. Sometimes championships were “serjeanties,” i.e. rendered service to lords, churches or cities in consideration of the grant of certain fiefs, or for annual money payments, the champion doing homage to the person or corporation represented by him (campiones homagii).
The office of “king’s champion” (campio regis) is peculiar to England. The function of the king’s champion, when the ceremonial of the coronation was carried out in its completeness, was to ride, clad in complete armour, on his right the high constable, on his left the earl marshal, into Westminster Hall during the coronation banquet, and challenge to single combat any who should dispute the king’s right to reign. The challenge was thrice repeated by the herald, at the entrance to the hall, in the centre, and at the foot of the dais. On picking up his gauntlet for the third time the champion was pledged by the king in a gilt-covered cup, which was then presented to him as his fee by the king. If he had had occasion to fight, and was victorious, his fee would have been the armour he wore and the horse he rode, the second best in the royal stables; but no such occasion has ever arisen. This picturesque ceremonial was last performed at the coronation of George IV. The office of king’s champion is of great antiquity, and its origins are involved in great obscurity. It is said to have been held under William the Conqueror by Robert or Roger Marmion, whose ancestors had been hereditary champions in Normandy. The first authentic record, however is a charter of Henry I., signed by Robert Marmion (Robertus de Bajucis campio regis). Of the actual exercise of the office the earliest record dates from the coronation of Richard II. On this occasion the champion, Sir John Dymoke, appeared at the door of the Abbey immediately after the coronation mass, but was peremptorily told to go away and return later; moreover, in his bill presented to the court of claims, he stated that the champion was to ride in the procession before the service, and make his challenge to all the world. This seems to show that the ceremony, as might be expected, was originally performed before the king’s coronation, when it would have had some significance. The office of king’s champion is hereditary, and is now held by the family of Dymoke (q.v.).
See Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. “Campio”; L. G. Wickham Legg, English Coronation Records (Westminster, 1901); J. H. T. Perkins, The Coronation Book (London, 1902).
CHAMPIONNET, JEAN ETIENNE (1762–1800), French general, enlisted in the army at an early age and served in the great siege of Gibraltar. When the Revolution broke out he took a prominent part in the movement, and was elected by the men of a battalion to command them. In May 1793 he was charged with the suppression of the disturbances in the Jura, which he quelled without bloodshed. Under Pichegru he took part in the Rhine campaign of that year as a brigade commander, and at Weissenburg and in the Palatinate won the warm commendation of Lazare Hoche. At Fleurus his stubborn fighting
