DUEL. 



179 



Duel. 



First royal 

 prohibition 

 f duels in 

 France. 



Means em- 

 ployed by 

 Henry IV. 

 to prevent 

 it. 



J .n ittempt 

 made to 

 (lass duel) 

 under the 

 bead of ac- 

 cidental 

 rencounters. 



pains taken to suppress it. Popes, bishops, and gene- 

 ral councils, often tried to put a stop to it, especially a 

 council held in 85.5, Nicholas I. and last of all, the 

 council of Trent in Session xxv. chap. 19. This coun- 

 cil terms it a detestable custom, introduced by the de- 

 vil for the destruction both of body and soul, excom- 

 municating not only all those who fought themselves, 

 but all their associates, and even the spectators of the 

 battle. 



Kings and princes also attempted to abolish it in their 

 dominions. Philip the Fair, at the close of the 13th 

 century, wished to suppress it ; but the spirit of the 

 times so much opposed his good intentions, that he could 

 effect nothing more than publish an edict, by which no- 

 thing was to be brought to that issue, which could be 

 determined otherwise. This edict was but little re- 

 garded. Things went on as before till the time of Hen- 

 ry II. when one of his favourites, having fallen in a duel 

 in his own presence, he took an oath never to allow any 

 duel during his reign, and he published an edict to that 

 effect. This seems to have been the first royal prohi- 

 bition of duels in France. But notions of punctilious 

 honour had prevailed so much, that it was doubtful 

 whether this prohibition did not serve to increase the 

 number of private duels. For before this reign, trials 

 of thi nature were only permitted on serious occasions, 

 or in instances of great personal offence, and they who 

 dared to fight without obtaining the royal permission 

 were deemed guilty of high treason. But as no such 

 consent was now to be obtained, every man conceived 

 himself a judge of his own case, and, dreading the least 

 imputation of his personal courage, was more ready to 

 stretch the usual j>oints of honour than to curtail them. 

 Honour, too, is of such a delicate and tender nature, as 

 to exert itself most in satisfying those points which 

 are not of strict legal obligation. 



The parliament of Paris, June 2fi, 1.599, declares all 

 those who have any way assisted or been present at 

 duels held for such unlawful prosecution of quarrels, 

 rebels to his majesty, transgressors of the law, and dis- 

 turbers of the public peace. In consequence of which, 

 Henry IV. in his edict at Blois 16'02, mentions, that 

 the disorders arising from the custom of fighting duels 

 for the reparation of honour, were so great, and so much 

 Christian blood was spilt by them, that he could not 

 judge himself worthy of swaying the sceptre, if he did 

 not put a stop to that abuse. During the first eighteen 

 years of his reign, not fewer than 4<XX) gentlemen are 

 said to have perished by the duel in France. In June 

 1609, besides the penalties already imposed, he ordain- 

 ed punishments for all who were any way concerned in 

 duelling, not only the principals, seconds, and carriers 

 of challenges, or offensive and provoking words, but for 

 such as came as spectators, without intention of fight- 

 ing, and even for those also, who, coming accidentally, 

 did not endeavour to prevent the effusion of blood ; and 

 that by death, confiscation of goods, loss or suspension 

 of places, fines, imprisonment, degradation from ho- 

 nour, and infamy, according to the share they had in 

 the quarrels. 



In the beginning of the reign of Louis XIII. to elude 

 the force of former edicts, it was attempted to class 

 duels under the head of accidental rencounters, upon 

 the pretext that no challenge was previously given. 

 This induced that prince to extend the former edicts re- 

 specting duels to rencounters also. The practice, how- 

 ever, went on, in spite of every attempt to put a stop to it. 

 Edicts were passed, every one severer than another, 

 but the evil continued to gain ground. There is scarce 



any Frenchman, says Lord Herbert, deemed worth 

 looking on, who has not slain his man in a duel. 



Louis XIV. set himself to oppose this bloody prac- 

 tice, and issued many edicts to that purpose. In par- 

 ticular, he published a famous one in 1679, which did 

 more to restrain duelling than all the attempts of his 

 predecessors put together. A solemn agreement enter- 

 ed into by many of the principal nobility and gentry of 

 the kingdom, contributed greatly to this effect ; and al- 

 so his own firmness in refusing all solicitations in behalf 

 of offenders. To check this alarming evil seems to have 

 been one of the chief wishes of his heart, since in 

 his last will he particularly recommends to his succes- 

 sor the care of his edict against duels. From that time 

 they have been much less frequent than before. 



In 1712, Augustus, King of Poland, published a se- 

 vere edict against duelling, consisting of no less than 62 

 articles. And now, perhaps Malta is the only country 

 in the world where the duel is permitted by law. In 

 Brydone's Tour, we have the following account of it. 

 " As their whole establishment is originally founded oil 

 wild and romantic principles of chivalry, they have ever 

 found it too inconsistent with these principles to abo- 

 lish duelling ; but they have laid it under such restric- 

 tions as greatly to lessen its danger. These are curiou* 

 enough. The duellists are obliged to decide their quar- 

 rel in one particular street of the city, and if they pre- 

 sume to fight any where else, they are liable to the ri- 

 gour of the law. But what is not less singular, and 

 much more in their favour, they are obliged, under the 

 most severe penalties, to put up their swords when or- 

 dered to do so by a woman, a priest, or a knight. Un- 

 der these limitations, in the midst of a great city, one 

 would imagine it almost impossible that a duel could 

 ever end in blood. However, this is not the case. A 

 cross is always painted on the wall opposite to the spot 

 where a knight has been killed, in commemoration of 

 his fall. We counted about twenty of these crosses." 



Though duelling was never carried to such an ex- 

 tent in this island as in France, in both kingdoms it 

 originated from the same source, and owed its progress 

 to the same causes. The judicial combat prevailed 

 much in England, especially about the time of Edward 

 III. and made a part of the law of the land. So late 

 as the year 1571, in the reign of Elizabeth, a demand 

 was made for a decision by judicial combat, concerning 

 the right of some manorial lands in the small isle of 

 Hartie, near the isle of Shepey, Kent. A proceeding 

 was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas against 

 the holder of the lands. The defendant demanded 

 leave to maintain his possession by the duel ; the peti- 

 tioners accepted the challenge, and the whole bench of 

 lawyers was put into confusion how to act upon this 

 appeal. This proves that the judicial combat was still 

 held to be a legal mode of proceeding when both par- 

 ties were agreed, though it had fallen much into dis- 

 use. The law courts do not seem to have had a power 

 of refusal. Accordingly, champions were immediately 

 chosen by each party to decide the combat, and all the 

 requisite forms were adjusted ; but the queen, anxious 

 to avojd bloodshed, procured a composition betwixt the 

 parties ; at the same time, that the formalities of the 

 law might be gone through, she permitted the duel 

 to proceed. Accordingly, on the day appointed, the 

 Justices of the Common Pleas, the counsellors and 

 lawyers, went down to Tothil Fields to be umpires of 

 the contest ; and the customary formalities were care- 

 fully attended to ; but, as it had been previously agreed, 

 the parties did not appear to acknowledge their respec- 



Ducl. 



Edict of 

 Louis XIV. 



Duels still 

 permitted 



in Malt*. 



Instance ;' 

 a judicial 

 combat in 

 England, . 

 late as 1571. 



