of

justices of the Common Pleas, the counsel and lawyers, in all form, went down to Tothill-fields to be umpires of the contest; and also the champions on both sides appeared equipped for the fight. Every ceremonial was gone through, and in the last place the petitioners were called on to maintain their suit in the person their champion. But, as it had been previously agreed, no petitioners appeared to acknowledge their champion, on which they were nonsuited, and victory adjudged to the defendant. Thus ended this mockjudicial combat, which was the last but one ever demanded in England, the last being that ostensibly demanded by Thornton, in 1818, as previously stated.

The history of modern duelling, in the strict sense of the word, seems to date from the year 1527, or the reign of Francis the First of France; but scarcely, I think, to be attributed, as some writers suppose, to the challenge sent by this monarch to Charles the Fifth, because when the emperor accepted the hostile message, and offered every facility for the meeting, the French king was not forthcoming. It was all mere gasconading."

66

Francis the First broke a treaty which he had made with the Emperor, who thereupon desired the herald of the French king to acquaint his sovereign that he would henceforth consider him not only as a base violator of public faith, but as a stranger to the honour and integrity becoming a gentleman. Francis instantly sent back the herald with a cartel, in which he

gave the emperor the lie in form, and challenged him to single combat, requiring him to name the time and place for the encounter, and the weapons. Charles, as I have stated, accepted the challenge, but the French king prudently allowed the matter to "blow over."

Francis the First, however, not only tolerated but approved of duelling; but he reserved the right of giving it his sanction, and was much displeased if a challenge was sent without his knowledge. Numerous duels occurred in his reign, and many were fatal. *

During the reign of Henry the Fourth, four thousand gentlemen lost their lives by duelling, and the "Bon Henri" granted fourteen thousand pardons for breaking the edicts against single combats. Well might Montaigne say that " if three Frenchmen were placed in the Libyan desert, they would not be a month there without quarrelling and fighting.”

About a century later, during the reign of Louis the Thirteenth, duelling had increased to such an extent that the severest edicts were issued against it, but which only seemed to give it additional virulence.

The minister Richelieu graduated the penalties of

*"The reign of Francis might have been one of gallantry and of pleasure; and there are not wanting even ladies who, in the present day, look upon its profligacies and their ferocious results as noble deeds-the effects of chivalric devotion. I must confesss that, in looking over its annals, I can find nothing remarkable, except an outrageous breach of all morality and decorum, and a wanton waste of human blood." (Millingen, 'History of Duelling.')

duelling according to the degrees of criminality, for he held that it was outrageous to inflict death on all duellists indiscriminately. The penalties he imposed by edict were, for a challenge, the loss of office, the confiscation of half the property of the offender, and a banishment for three years.

A duel not followed by death was liable to incur the loss of nobility, infamy, or capital punishment; the circumstances were to guide the judges.

If one party was killed, the penalty was death and the total confiscation of property.

The Parliament of Paris, which was inclined to adopt the most rigorous measures against duelling, petitioned the king to enforce the edict to the utmost, but Richelieu told them that a physician who, after several trials, has perceived the inefficacy of a remedy, cannot be blamed for prescribing a new one, especially if he preserves the former in all its strength, to have recourse to it when necessary.

Severe examples were made. Praslin, the son of a distinguished officer of state, was banished the Court and deprived of his offices and appointments for fighting a duel; and for the same cause Francis de Montmorency, Count de Bouteville, lost his head on the scaffold.

Bouteville held the first rank among the "braves" of the day. He was an expert swordsman, and was ever on the look-out for an encounter. If ever told that so-and-so was a brave fellow, he immediately

sought him out and addressed him as follows:-" Sir, they tell me you are brave; I wish to try you. What are your arms?"

Parliamentary edicts were levelled against him, but Bouteville was not the man to sheath his sword for so small a matter. He even, by way of joke, forced the Count de Pont-Gibaut from his devotions at church one Easter Sunday to go out and fight him. The result was that the Parliament issued two more edicts against him; Bouteville laughed at them. He crossed swords in 1625 with the Marquis de Portes, killed the Count de Thorigny in 1626, and in 1627 fought the Baron de la Frette, at Saint-Germain.

Some time afterwards, a report was circulated that a duel was in contemplation between Bouteville and the Marquis de Beuvron, who was resolved to avenge the death of the Count de Thorigny, his relative. But on this occasion it was resolved to put the edicts in full force against the delinquents, and Beuvron and Bouteville had to take refuge at Brussels. Thereupon Louis XIII. wrote to the Archduchess governing the Netherlands, requesting her to prevent the duel. The Princess enjoined the Marquis de Spinola to interpose in the matter. The latter invited the parties to dinner, treated them with the greatest magnificence, and made them swear to give up the quarrel. The agreement was made in the presence of numerous high functionaries, French, Spanish, and Flemish. Before leaving the apartment, however, the Marquis de Beuvron told

Bouteville, after shaking hands with him, "I shall never be satisfied until I have seen you sword in hand."

But the fierce Bouteville, though so ready to draw his sword, refused to fight at Brussels,-he had given his word and was resolved to keep it. He begged the Archduchess to intercede for him with Louis XIII. to permit him to return to France. The King replied that all he could do for her sake was not to send for Bouteville at Brussels, but that he had better take care never to show himself in France.

Meanwhile Beuvron returned to Paris, and sent challenge after challenge to Bouteville. At the eighth, the latter resolved to go and meet him at Paris, which he did as soon as possible. Beuvron proposed to fight without seconds, to which Bouteville objected, and the meeting took place on the Place Royal,―the Count intending to disobey the edict in the most open manner. The small sword and poignard were the weapons. The combatants set to with great impetuosity, and soon getting too near, they threw down their swords, with common consent, and seized their poignards. At the instant of stabbing each other, they mutually asked for life and desisted. Bouteville again fled, but was taken, tried at Paris, and beheaded.

At the commencement of the reign of Louis XIV. occurred the duel between the Dukes de Beaufort and Nemours, brothers-in-law, and eight of their followers, together; Nemours and two of his attendants were left dead on the field.