CHAPTER II.

GENERAL SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF DUELLING, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

SOME writers have been pleased to trace the practice of duelling not only to the remotest times,—such as that when it appears that Cain "called out" his brother Abel,*—but certainly to the age of chivalry, and its extraordinary race of men who, at the sight of a virtuous and beautiful lady in distress, were inclined to expose themselves to all hazards for her sake, the age when woman's honour was held sacred by common consent.

Then it was, in those happy days of chivalry, that

* In the previous "talk" of Cain with Abel it is supposed that a challenge was given and accepted, when they went out to settle the matter. The Scriptural words are, "And Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him." There is nothing in the text absolutely to exclude the supposition that Abel defended himself in the encounter.

VOL. I.

men had such frequent opportunities of signalizing themselves in combat, of enlisting in the service of the fair sex, and winning their favours at the point of the lance.

Investing a knight was a very interesting ceremony, and attended by many solemn and religious rites, as fasting, prayer, and the reception of the sacrament. Clad in armour, he passed the night at the foot of the altar; and the priests of the church assisted at his inauguration.

Having received the sword and an embrace from the priest, as customary on the occasion, he devoted himself to the defence of religion, of widows and orphans, and all exposed to oppression.

When his sword, which had previously been blessed, was delivered to him, he received a slight blow on the cheek, as an emblem of the last affront it was lawful for him to receive unresented; and he most solemnly pledged himself to speak always the truth, to despise the allurements of ease and personal safety, and to vindicate in every perilous adventure the honour of his character.

The lance was the weapon generally used by a knight in single combat. His heavy charger was led by an attendant, while he himself, clad in full armour, rode a small palfrey, and did not mount his war-horse until he arrived on the field, where he was attended by his faithful esquire, a youth of good birth, and followed by his archers and men-at-arms. What a noble

sight it must have been to behold him mounted on his raven steed, bearing on his helm the "favour" or token which his fair lady's hand had affixed, bounding lightly forward to the fight, and wielding the huge weapon in his sturdy arms with almost incredible dexterity!

Such was the practice in the age of chivalry.

Then there was the "ordeal of battel," or the judicial combat, which was admitted not only in criminal cases, but also in civil disputes for the maintenance of rights to estates, and the like.

Nothing could be more contrary to good sense than those combats. But men, though reasonable in the main, reduce even their very prejudices to rule, and when once this point was laid down, a kind of prudential management was used in carrying it into execution.

When there happened to be several accusers, they were obliged to agree among themselves that the action might be carried on by a single prosecutor; and if they could not agree, the person before whom the action was brought appointed one of them to prosecute the quarrel.

When a gentleman challenged a "villain"-that is, a person of low degree, and not necessarily a rogue, according to our use of the term-he was obliged to present himself on foot with buckler and "baston" or stick; but if he came on horseback and armed like a gentleman, they took his horse and his arms from him,

and stripping him to his shirt, they compelled him to fight in that condition with the villain.

Before the combat the magistrates ordered three banns to be published. By the first the relations of the parties were commanded to retire; by the second. the people were warned to be silent; and the third prohibited giving any assistance to either of the parties, under severe penalties, nay, even on pain of death, if by this assistance either of the combatants should happen to be vanquished.

The officers belonging to the civil magistrate guarded the list or enclosure where the battel was fought; when the pledges were received either for a crime or for false judgment, the parties could not make up the matter without the consent of the lord; and when one of the parties was overcome, there could be no accommodation without the permission of the

court.

There were a great many people incapable either of offering or of accepting battel; but liberty was given them in trial of the cause to choose a champion; and that the latter might have a stronger interest in defending the party in whose behalf he appeared, his hand was cut off if he lost the battel.

When, in capital cases, the duel was fought by champions, the parties to the suit were placed where they could not behold the battel; each was bound with the cord that was to be used at his execution, in case his champion was overcome.

The practice of judiciary combat had this advantage, that it was calculated to change a general into a particular quarrel, to restore the courts of judicature to their authority, and to reduce to a civil state those who were no longer governed but by the law of nations. As there are numberless wise things which are managed in a very foolish manner, so there are many foolish things that are very wisely conducted: the practice of judiciary combat was one of the latter.

In process of time, before battel was entirely abolished by law, it was restricted to the following four cases:—First, that the crime should be capital; secondly, that it should be certain the crime had been perpetrated; thirdly, that the accused must, by common fame, be supposed guilty; and fourthly, that the matter was not capable of proof by witness.

It is extraordinary that this custom should have been first abolished by the Icelanders, a people not at all remarkable for their advancement in civilization.

It is equally remarkable that the trial by ordeal of battel was in force in England down to very recent times, as was strikingly proved in the following case detailed in the Law Reports. An alleged murderer having pleaded "Not Guilty; and I am ready to defend the same by my body," was furnished with a pair of gloves, one of which being put on, the other was thrown down, and duly taken into the custody of the That was in 1818. The defence was allowed by the judges; the prisoner was discharged; and

court.