/ 
568 
the cessation of the civil commotions. 
It seems even to: have increased not a 
little, in the reign of Henry IV. It has 
been computed, (according to Sully’s 
Memoirs), that from his accession, to the 
year 1607, a period of-eighteen years, no 
fewer than four thousand French gen- 
tlenven were killed in duels. 
“In 1578, a combat was fought by six 
French noblemen, three against three. 
Two of them were killed on the spot, two 
died of their wounds, and a fitth was 
severely wounded. In 1600, a private 
contbat was fought between twenty 
French, and as many Flemish. Voltaire 
informs us, that the combat of the La 
Frettes, four against four, in 1663, de- 
termed Louis XLV. to pardon duelling 
no longer. . 
“ Duelling with small swords was first 
introduced into England, 29:h Elizabeth, 
1587. In the reign of James [. it be- 
came an object of attention to govern- 
ment; and afterwards a proclamation 
was issued by Charles II. 1679, that no 
person should be pardoned who killed 
avother in a duel.” 
The preceding facts I-have extracted 
from a valuable recent’ publication, 
“Essays on the Art of War,” a work 
essentially necessary to every efficer in 
the British army, 
There have been in England many 
trials for killing in a duel, and many ver- 
dicts for manslaughter ; but there appears 
only one trial on record, where killing in 
a fair duel has produced a capital ver- 
diet: that was the case of Major Oneby, 
who prevented a public execution, by 
suicide. In the late case .of Major 
Campbell, in Ireland, there is no doubt 
but the jury who found him guilty, did 
so, under the impression that he shot his 
adversary unfairly. No small check has 
of jate been given to the practice of 
duelling, from the great number of re- 
spectable individuals, who have had the 
courage, instead of meeting their chal- 
lengers in the field, to prosecute them in 
courts of justice; nor does it appear, that 
inany such cases the public have deetned 
it a stain on their character, but the 
reverse. aan 
The judicial trial by battle was. esta- 
blished in England, France, and various 
parts of Europe. The reason for its con- 
tinuing so long, seems to have been, that 
the lord in most districts had the ap- 
pointment of the ordinary judge, who, 
(either himself, or his lord),was_inter- 
ested ip favour of one of the parties 
litigant; which might, perhaps, drive the 
- 
On Dueling. 
[july f 
other party, from a suspicion of this pre* 
judice against him, to appeal to the 
chance by combat. There is a story in 
Grafton’s Chronicle, which must have 
made this trial infinitely ridiculous. A 
citizen of London, in the time of Henry 
VI. was of a strong make, but of a faint 
heart. We happened to be obliged, by 
this kind of decision, to enter the lists - 
against an antagonist, who was both weak 
_and puny. The friends of the citizen, 
to give him courage, plied him with wine 
and aqua vite, so that he was drunk 
when he began to engage, and fell an 
easy prey to his adversary. 
‘the last instance but one, of trial by 
battle, in England, is that of Lord Rea 
and of David Ramsden, in the reign of 
Charles I. when the court was held by 
-the constable, and the earl marshal of 
England. Of this case, Rushworth gives 
an ample account, and the legal plead- 
ings and proceedings of the appeal; it 
being in the arbitrement of the court, 
whether it should be granted, or not. In 
his answer, the defendant, Ramsden, al- 
ledges that the hill and appeal (which 
was for having had treasonable inten- 
tions) was and.is false, and that the 
appellant Lord Rea did le falsely; 
which is by some, supposed to account 
for the lie direct being followed by duels 
to this day. In Rushworth’s account, 
we find. farther, that the court, on the 
petition of Lord Rea, permits him to 
have, whilst in the lists, counsel, and a 
surgeon with his ointments; they like- 
wise allow him. a seat, or pavilion, to 
rest himself, and wine for refreshment. 
He is besides, to have iron, nails, ham- 
mer, file, scissars, and bodkin, together 
with needle and thread. Ajster two-or 
three adjournments, the king superseded 
his commission to the) constable and 
marshal, so that the combat did not ace 
tually take place. Shortly after a trial 
by battle was brought on a writ of right, 
but set aside for irregularity. _ ) 
In France, the form of proceeding was 
_this:—The accuser and the accused threw 
down a gage, usually a gauntlet, which 
the judge took up. The two combatants, 
on this, were taken into custody, after 
which the affair admitted of no accome- 
modation, but by the judge’s consent. 
The chief judge, having fixed the day, 
named the field, and furnished the wea- 
pons, which were carried to the spot, 
preceded by fifes and trumpets. Herea 
priest blessed them with a multitude of 
ceremonies. The action began by 
giving the lie to each other, till rs 
3 Pai ere 
