CHAPTER VIII

TRIAL BY COMBAT, ITS SCOPE AND HISTORY

Curiously interlinked with the procedure of the law courts, forming, indeed, an integral part of the law of the land, was the judicial duel; an institution applying to both civil and criminal jurisdiction.

It was allowed in certain cases, such as on a civil writ of right for the recovery of land, and in criminal charges of treason or felony on an appellant making a sworn declaration before a judge. This law, though falling greatly into disuse after the reign of Queen Elizabeth, remained on the statute book until early in the nineteenth century.

Among the Ashmolean, Harleian and Cottonian MSS. are many tracts, treatises and other documents relating to the laws and manner of conducting judicial duels, with other matter concerning these combats; and abstracts from the MSS. are given in Appendices E, F, and G, respectively.

The custom of trial by combat or legal duel, the ordeal of battle, was introduced into England by the Normans.[244] As far as can be ascertained it was unknown to the Anglo-Saxons, though the ordeal of hot water appears in one of Ine’s laws;[245] and, indeed, trial by ordeal appears repeatedly among the laws of the Anglo-Saxon kings. The principle involved was the same in both cases, viz. that the Almighty would not remain indifferent when solemnly invoked, but would intervene miraculously so that the ends of justice might be furthered. The simple faith of the times would act as a deterrent to appeals to the judgment of God and would thus tend to limit the number of cases. The consciousness of innocence or guilt would also contribute towards the vindication of the cause of justice in actual combat.

The proofs by fire and water (_vulgaris purgatio_), holding, carrying or walking over hot iron or heated plough-shares (_ferri candentis judicium_), being thrown into deep water, bound hand and foot, may be said roughly to have preceded that by judicial combat; but they form quite another and earlier branch of the subject. The number of cases given in history of these earlier forms of ordeal which defendants are stated to have passed through triumphantly is considerable, but most of them must surely be either apocryphal, or the intensity of the ordeals themselves was much exaggerated.

Ordeal by combat is found among the laws of nearly all the German tribes; and it flourished greatly in France until cases of more than suspected miscarriage of justice brought it into disrepute. An edict passed at Lyons in the year 501 established the institution as a regular form of trial. It appears among the ancient laws of the Swedes and Lombards.

In civil cases a claimant would declare that some ancestor of his had been in seisin of certain property but had been unlawfully deprived of it by another, and he would offer battle to the “tenant,” as the owner was then called, for its restitution, by the body of a champion. The tenant, or defendant, could then choose between an appeal to the Grand Assize, an inquest where the question of right is determined by the verdict of neighbours,[246] in which institution may be traced the germ of the more modern jury; or to the ordeal of battle, in his own body or by champion. No one was compelled to defend his seisin of a free tenement by battle, though a claimant could offer combat in the lists, which, however, might be refused by a defendant. When a civil court ordered a combat it was fought on foot in a small circular or oblong enclosure, similar to that used in the foot-fighting, with shields and staves (bastons) at a _pas d’armes_ of the fifteenth century. The course of procedure in criminal cases for the most part differed widely from that followed in civil cases and was under quite another jurisdiction; and it largely consisted of accusations made against the honour of certain persons, or of alleged treason. It was customary for an accuser to justify his charge by an offer of single combat in the lists, “God showing the right”; and such a mode of settlement was greatly in unison with the chivalric spirit of the age. To bring such a matter to an issue an accuser offered battle by throwing down his glove, which when lifted by a defendant signified that the challenge was accepted. The king was appealed to, and, in the event of the case being remitted to the ordeal of battle, he assigned the place and day for the combat. He further, in consultation with the constable and marshal, decided on the preliminaries, the conditions of battle to be observed being regulated in accordance with fixed ordinances, which in England were drawn up by the constable for the time being. The combat would be on horseback, fighting _à outrance_, with lance and sword, in lists similar to those erected for the tourney. Charges of homicide or murder might in this country be remitted to the ordeal of battle, with shields and bastons and in civil garments. Should an accused or claimant fail to appear in the lists on the day appointed he could be outlawed.

The judicial duel may be regarded as the prototype or parent of the chivalrous duel on foot at a _pas d’armes_.

The custom never took deep root in England, though during the reign of King Henry II, when the monarchy had become more settled, and in the times of his immediate successors Richard and John, disputes relating to the possession of land were very rife, greatly owing to the fact that so many manors and smaller holdings had been forcibly and illegally riven from their rightful owners in the preceding reigns since the Conquest, by the barons and their adherents. The ordinary law courts experienced great difficulty in dealing with them on the principles set forth in the written statutes, which then as always inclined to favour the man in possession; and the rough and ready settlement by combat was ordered, more especially in cases where there was a hopeless conflict of testimony between litigants and no means of getting at the truth by the evidence of any living witnesses.

The actual number of judicial duels would seem to have been small in England, for in the great majority of cases before the courts the judges managed to declare that there should be no combat.

Certain persons were excused from battle. They comprised the citizens of London, who were exempted by charter; the clergy; “_sexagenarii_”; and “those blind by accident after issue joined.”[247] Women were not exempted by law and, indeed, sometimes fought.

The early ordinances, forms and manner of carrying out this singular institution in practice in England are given in _Origines Juridiciales_.[248]

A short and imperfect summary follows on these pages:

TRIAL BY COMBAT IN CIVIL CASES

In cases where this mode of trial for the possession of certain lands or other property was allowed by the court, and a combat followed, the further tenure of a holding in question would depend solely on the principle of battle, without any later appeal to the Grand Assize being permissible.

Before a trial by combat could be sanctioned the claimant in the suit was summoned before the court with his champion, who, once fixed upon, could not be changed, unless in the case of his “natural death” taking place in the interval before battle; but should he die “by his own fault, the lord shall lose his Sute.”

The defendant might either defend his cause in person or fight by deputy; but should he elect to be represented by champion and the one chosen should die in the interim it would become a question to be argued before the court as to whether or not the defendant should be allowed to appoint another in his place. The challenger or demandant was not allowed to fight in person.

Should the defendant, the “tenant,” be vanquished in the fight, then “the lord shall lose the land and the claimant shall have it”; but it often happened that a champion had been hired for some fee or reward, and if this should be proved the principal would lose his suit. Some particulars are given of a case of this kind[249] “betwixt Thomas fitz Hugh de Staunton and the prior of Lenton for the advousen of the church of Harlaston, in Northamptonshire.” Both parties to the suit were represented by champion, the appellant being a churchman, and they fought on foot in the lists, armed with bastons (i.e. polygonally-shaped maces or cudgels of heavy wood, tipped with horn: “basculi cornuti, bastons cornuz”).[250]

TRIAL BY COMBAT IN CASES CRIMINAL

This was conducted much on the lines of knightly usage in combats on horseback _à outrance_, except, as already stated, in charges of homicide or murder.

The cartel setting forth the charge, subscribed to on oath, was laid before the judges of chivalry by the appellant, the accuser, stating that “he was ready to maintain the same with his body.” This document was then considered by the judges, and should combat be allowed it was served on the accused, the defendant; and if within an interval of six weeks he had not responded, judgment was registered against him by default, his coat-armour being reversed or ignominiously fastened under his horse’s tail, in disgrace.

Should the accused stand on his defence both parties were cited to appear in the field outside the lists, which were quadrangular in form with a gate at each end. Judgment seats were provided for the constable and marshal, and at their feet were stationed a competent number of experienced knights and “a doctor or two of civil laws,” all for the advice and assistance of the court.

The appellant first came to the gate at the right end of the lists, clad in complete armour, attended by his esquires, and the constable and marshal demanded of him through their herald his name and purpose. On his answering, he was conducted into the lists by a knight and herald and placed before the judgment seat on the right hand. A similar course of procedure was adopted towards the defendant, who was placed facing the accuser on the left hand.

The choice of the weapons stipulated in the cartel lay with the defendant, and the advisory knights inspected and measured them for both sides, so that there might be no inequality in that respect between the parties; and the knights must answer for it that there be no enchantment or magic practised on either side.

It was then demanded of the principals if their purpose held, and they affirmed the same, laying their hands on the Evangelists. The appellant then briefly rehearsed the terms of the cartel of defiance, making oath as to its truth, after which the defendant affirmed also on oath his denial of the charge.

These preliminaries over the parties prepared for battle, which was to continue from sunrise to sunset; the herald crys, “Let them goe together,” and the onset is sounded by trumpet call.

Should the appellant not overcome the defendant during the day the latter was deemed guiltless, and the procurator of the constable and marshal publicly proclaimed the fact: but to secure what was termed “a perfect victory,” a confession of guilt by one of the parties was necessary. The cartel was then sealed with the common seal in testimony that the combat had duly taken place, and all the legal formalities been observed.

A picture of a legal duel on a murder charge, of the reign of Henry III, has been preserved, and the names of the combatants are written upon it. It has been reproduced by Hewitt in _Ancient Armour and Weapons of War_,[251] and the parties are represented fighting. A gallows is depicted in the group with the vanquished combatant hanging from it. This was no knightly battle—the champions fought on foot in their civil dresses of leather or cloth, bare-headed, with quadrangular bowed shields, and bastons garnished at their heads with spurs, like those of a pick.

Rules and ordinances for the regulation of judicial combats in France were promulgated by Phillip IV, surnamed le Bel. An abridged account of them follows:—[252]

Four things to be established before the Gage of Battle may be adjudged.

1. The institution applies to grave suspicion in cases of murder, manslaughter, treason or the like offences. 2. Every true man if he knows himself to be accused to present himself before the court without waiting to be cited or summoned. 3. That no gage be granted for accusations of theft or robbery. 4. On a gage of battle being granted the appellant to furnish particulars as to where the alleged wicked deed was done, the name of the party dead; or full details of the treason alleged to have been committed.

Should the judge allow the combat the advocate of the appellant is to lay the case before the court in sober terms; but should the defendant deny the charge the appellant must say that, although he cannot prove it by witnesses or other evidence, yet he can avouch it in his own body or by another for him, in an enclosed field in presence of the king.

The appellant is to throw down his glove and retain counsel for arms, horse, etc., necessary for the gage of battle. The defendant may reply to the accusation that the appellant has falsely and maliciously lied; and that in his defence, by the help of God and our Lady, he will avouch his innocence with his body or by some other for him; and that he will be ready on the day and at the place fixed upon for the combat. Then he is to take up the gage thrown down by the appellant, and a decision will be given by the count as to whether trial by battle will be allowed or not.

If recourse to a duel be permitted the parties will swear to be on the ground on the day appointed; the combat to be overlooked by wise and honest men, clerks, knights, and esquires, without favour to either party; but should either appellant or defendant fail to keep his tryst he shall be proclaimed recreant, and afterwards arrested.

Regulations as to the procedure for the combat follows:—the parties to bring sustenance for themselves and their horses for the day; the lists to be 40 paces in width by 80 in length, and within them two pavilions are to be pitched for the use and comfort of the combatants. The herald is to come on horseback to the gate and to cry three times; firstly, before the arrival of the appellant; secondly, when the combatants have entered the lists; and thirdly, when they have taken their oaths. The appellant should be first in the field on the day of battle, before the hour of noon; the defendant not later than four in the afternoon. The parties make their affirmations and the sign of the cross, and appear before the stand on which the judge is seated, and he commands them to raise the visors of their helmets, after which they return to their pavilions. The herald, after having called them for the third time, motions them to kneel before a table on which a crucifix and missal are placed, when a priest admonishes them; and the marshal takes off their right-hand gauntlets and hangs them on the arms of the cross. The combatants then mount their horses, the pavilions are removed from the lists, and the marshal cries, “Gentlemen doe your Deuoire,” throwing down his glove, and the combat begins.

The body of the vanquished, dead or alive, shall be delivered by the judge to the marshal, his points cut and armour cast piecemeal in the lists, and his horse and armour shall appertain to the constable and marshal of the field. The victor shall depart honourably from the lists, on horseback.

Ashmole MS., No. 764, p. 7, furnishes the following:—“_De la droite ordonnance du Gaige de Bataille par tout le royaume de France Philipe par la grace de Dieu Roy de France a touz ceulx qui ces presentes lettres verront salut._” This letter of King Philip IV, written in 1306, limits the practice of wager of battle, and is prefixed to regulations for the whole course of the combat (44-54 b).

In Favine’s _Theatre of Honour and Knighthood_,[253] rendered into English in 1622, judicial duels are thus defined:—“It was the custome of our auncient French to vndertake the hazard of armes and combat, to justifie themselues in an Accusation, fordged against their honour and good fame; and to sustaine the truth of some iust cause, whereof the proofes were doubtfull, yea, wholly hid and concealed.” In France the oaths were administered over the bones and relics of saints and martyrs.

In _La Vie de Bertrand Du Guesclin_[254] is an account of a singular legal duel between Jews, named Daniot and Turquant, which took place in Spain; and the narration aptly illustrates the superstitious character of the times and country. These Jews were accused of assassinating Blanche de Bourbon at night in her bed; and on being charged with the crime Daniot averred that he had not entered the bed-chamber of the princess at all, and had done his best to prevent Turquant from committing the murder. This Turquant denied on oath, stating that his accomplice had taken an equal part with himself in causing the death of the princess. On hearing of this direct conflict of testimony Bertrand Du Guesclin is stated to have suggested a judicial duel in the lists (_champ-clos_) between the parties, and this having been assented to the fight duly took place. The combatants, who were well mounted and in complete armour, fought with swords, and after some severe passages Turquant wounded Daniot in the arm so severely that he was incapacitated from further combat, owing mainly to the loss of so much blood. The _coup de mort_ was about to be given to the vanquished champion and a confession of his guilt demanded when just at that moment a thick cloud appeared above the heads of the combatants, and issuing from it a flash of lightning struck them both dead.

Among the Monstrelet illustrations is a picture of a highly improbable judicial duel between a man and a dog, the man being accused of murdering the dog’s master. The picture was copied from an ancient painting which hung in the great hall of the Castle of Montargis, and is supposed to picture an event recorded by Colombière in _Theatre d’Honneur et de Chevalerie_. The fight is stated to have taken place in the reign of Charles V of France (1364-1380).[255] The scene represents the duel in progress within a large circular enclosure or lists, around which are galleries and promenades like a theatre, the numerous spectators being richly dressed nobles and ladies. Companies of soldiers are on guard and there is a large band of trumpeters. The defendant is clad in a leather jerkin, torn in places, and slashed drawers; he is armed with a baston or club and a large circular shield. The dog, a large staghound, is seen gripping the murderer by the throat, and justice is vindicated.

“On the seuenth of June 1380 a combat was fought afore the kings palace at Westminster, on the pauement there, betwixt one sir John Anneslie knight, and one Thomas Katrington esquire; the occasion of which strange and notable triall rose hereof. The knight accused the esquire of treason, for that which the fortresse of saint Sauior within the Ile of Constantine in Normandie, belonging sometime to sir John Chandois, had béene committed to the said Katrington, as capteine thereof, to keepe it against the enemies, he had for monie sold and deliuered it ouer to the Frenchmen, when he was suffientlie prouided with men, munition and vittels, to have defended it against them: and sith the inheritance of that fortresse and landes belonging thereto, had apperteined to the said Annerslie in right of his wife, as néerest cousine by affiniti vnto sir John Chandois, if by the false conueiance of the said Katrington, it had not beene made awaie, and alienated into the enemies hands: he offered therefore to trie the quarrell by combat, against the said Katrington, wherevpon was the same Katrington apprehended, and put in prison, but shortlie after set at libertie againe.” It was decided to try the case by combat, and the constable and marshal were duly notified. Lists were erected and crowds assembled on the day appointed to witness the fight. On being called three times by the herald-at-arms the parties entered the lists for fighting, and the articles of combat were publicly read, and after each had been duly sworn the fight commenced “first with speares, after with swords, and lastlie with daggers. They fought long till finallie the knight had bereft the esquire of all his weapons, and at length the esquire was manfull overthrowned by the knight,” who was declared the conqueror. The esquire died soon after from his hurts. The king was present at the fight.[256]

Mr. Hewitt[257] describes a legal duel of the reign of King Richard II, between a chevalier of Navarre and an English esquire, which is figured in Cotton MS., Nero, D VI. The engraving has been reproduced in Strutt’s _Regal Antiquities_.[258] Holinshed gives an account of the duel, as taking place in 1384, between John Walsh or Wallis and an esquire of Navarre named Martilet; the charge being that the former had forced the wife of the latter. Martilet was slain, his body drawn, hanged and beheaded.

Froissart describes a judicial duel which took place at Paris in the year 1386, in the reign of Charles VI of France, between the Chevaliers Jean de Carouge and Jacques le Gris, both knights of the household of the Comte d’Alençon. Owing to the singular nature of the charge the event caused a great stir at the time and drew a multitude of spectators from far and near. De Carouge leaving France to take part in the crusade in Palestine, his young and handsome wife, a modest and virtuous dame, awaited his return in their strong castle of Argenteil. Jacques le Gris having conceived an unlawful passion for the lady determined to gratify it during the absence of her lord. He paid a visit to the castle one morning and was received by the lady with all honour as being a companion at arms of her husband; and was being shown over it when he asked to see the dungeon. She suspecting no evil, took him down to it alone, when he suddenly locked the door, took advantage of her and forced her. On the return of de Carouge from the Holy Land his wife complained to him of the outrage, which was solemnly denied by the defendant; and the husband called together his friends and kindred to advise with them as to his proper course of action. Parliament was applied to, and a combat to the death between the parties was arranged to take place, de Carouge to act as champion for his wife, le Gris to defend his honour in his own person. Lists were erected at Paris behind the Temple, together with accommodation for the vast number of spectators expected to be present. King Charles was at Sluys at the time superintending the arrangements for a contemplated invasion of England, but he hurried back to Paris to sit as umpire on the occasion. On the day of battle the two knights entered the lists, with their sponsors, armed at all points; and the onset was sounded for a joust _à outrance_, which was run without hurt to either party. They then dismounted and attacked each other with swords. De Carouge was first wounded in the thigh, but continued fighting and at length passed his sword through the body of his adversary, killing him instantly. The body of le Gris was delivered over to the common hangman by the marshal and dragged to Montfauçon, where it was gibbeted.

Juvenal des Ursins, in _Histoire de Charles VI_,[259] also gives an account of this duel, which differs materially from that of Froissart, and is more likely to be correct. It states that when the vanquished knight lay wounded on the ground and when de Carouge was about to administer the _coup de grâce_ he demanded a confession of guilt, but le Gris with his last breath solemnly asseverated his denial of the crime; and innocent he was later proved to be, for some time afterwards another person on his death-bed confessed to having committed the outrage. The motive of the lady in charging the wrong person is not apparent. The duel is also described in _Les Annales de France_.

In 1398 the Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk accused each other of treason, and a duel took place between them, though King Richard had in vain tried to reconcile them. Holinshed gives the following account of this combat:—“The duke of Aumarle was that daie high constable and the duke of Surrie marshal, and they entered vnto the lists with a great companie of men apparelled in silke sendall, imbrodered with siluer both richlie and curouslie, euerie man hauing a tipped staffe to keepe the feeld in order. About the houre of prime came to the barriers of the listes, the duke of Hereford, mounted on a white courser, barded with gréene and blew veluet imbrodered sumptuouslie with swans and antelops of goldsmiths worke, armed at all points. The constable and marshall came to the barrier, demanding of him what he was, he answered ‘I am Henrie of Lancaster, duke of Hereford which am come hither to doo endeuer against Thomas Mowbraie duke of Norfolke, as a traitor vnto God, the king, his realme, and me.’ Then he entered the listes, and descended from his horse, and set him down in a chaire of greene veluet, at the one end of the lists, and there reposed himself, abiding the comming of his aduesarie.” King Richard then entered the lists with great pomp “accompanied with all the péeres of the realm,” and took his seat upon the tribune. “After him entered the Duke of Norfolk, his horse barded in crimcon velvet, embroidered with lions in silver and mulberry trees,” and he took his seat in a chair, “which was of crimosen veluet, courtined about with white and red damaske.” The herald then gave the signal for the combat to begin, but the course proved abortive, and the king cast his bâton, the heralds crying “Ho, Ho.” A council was then held by the king resulting in both dukes being banished the realm.[260]

TRIAL BY COMBAT IN GERMANY[261]

Application had to be made by an appellant to the civic authority of a town before a judicial duel could take place, and this having been done the following answer would be given:—

“We have received your letter and are very sorry to see that your hearts are so moved with rancour and hatred as you seem to bear to one another. In which regard we pray you that you would desist from combat if it may be; and that you would end your quarrels by the way of mildness and gentleness without the adventuring of handy strokes and without shedding human blood. Consent to our request, and so much the rather because we entreat you most instantly.”

Should the demand for a trial by combat be still persisted in the following answer was returned:—

“Seeing that you still persist in your hatred and challenge, and that the way of gentleness can take no course of kindness between you, we do order and appoint that you shall appear on such a day before us to hear the ground and subject of your quarrel, wherein we mean to do you justice.”

A day may then be assigned for the combat if it be allowed.

The preliminaries and regulations are similar to those which prevailed in France and England, with, however, the difference that in each of the pavilions pitched in the lists for the accommodation of the combatants, a bier, a coffin, four candles and a shroud for the dead were placed; and both the appellant and defendant were confessed by a priest. If not slain the party vanquished remained infamous for the rest of his life; he was never allowed participation in aught knightly, and his beard was to be kept close-shaven.[262]

Trials by combat in Germany were more complex and far-reaching than was the case in France and England, and the weapons employed in conducting them more varied and specialized in character.

A paper was read on February 20th, 1840, before the Society of Antiquaries, London, by Mr. R. L. Pearsall,[263] entitled, “Some Observations on Judicial Duels, as practised in Germany”; a short résumé of which follows here. The paper is largely based upon a curious manuscript of the year 1400, in the Royal Library at Munich, containing some text and a number of wood-cuts on vellum, representing various forms of duel in Germany. The work is by Paulus Kall “Master of Defence”[264] to the then Duke of Bavaria; and the illustrations refer to judicial and perhaps other duels as practised in the Fatherland about the end of the fourteenth century, as well as to some others of a still earlier period. This MS., together with others at Munich and Gotha, references to which Mr. Pearsall has omitted to give, form the ground-work of his paper.

Strange though it may seem, the legal duel was resorted to as a court of appeal in extreme cases of quarrels and accusations between man and wife; and Fig. 2 in Paulus Kall’s book affords an illustration of the manner in which such combats were conducted. It depicts a man, bare-headed, buried in a pit up to his loins, holding a short staff in his right hand, the left arm bound to his side. The woman is clad in her chemise only, which is bound together below the middle by a lace passing between the legs; the right sleeve of the garment extends beyond the hand “_ein dunne Elle_” in a bag which contains a stone, and this constitutes her weapon of attack. At first sight the combat would appear to be an unequal one. It might be thought for a moment that the wood-cut had been conceived in a humorous sense, but there is no doubt whatever that such duels did really take place in Germany, though cases of the kind were probably comparatively rare after the twelfth century; and, indeed, Mr. Pearsall had not been able to find any record of an actual combat of the kind later than the year 1200, when a man and his wife are stated to have fought under the sanction of the civic authorities at Bâle. We may take it, however, from other evidence that the practice continued up to the close of the fourteenth century and perhaps even later. Reference is made in the paper to a book of drawings, also at Munich, executed as late as the end of the fifteenth century, among which is a representation of such a duel, though possibly traditional in character. The man here is depicted as buried up to the waist in a tub; he wears a skull-cap, and is armed in the same manner as shown in the other drawing, with a short staff, the left arm tied to his side. The woman is fully dressed and in the act of swinging a weapon which looks like a sling, in which is a stone. Mr. Pearsall further refers to “an ancient codex of defence” in the library at Gotha, one of the drawings depicting a duel between a man and his wife, the former fighting from a tub; and the man is shown to have vanquished the woman and drawn her into the tub headforemost, in which she appears with her legs kicking in the air. This incident explains why the chemise, as shown on Fig. 2 of Kall’s work, was tied with a lace between the legs; and that wood-cut also illustrates the mode of action on the part of the duelists in attack and defence. The woman’s weapon is thus seen not to be a sling at all, but one similar in principle to the extended sleeve with a bag at the end in which is a stone; the object being to inflict a swinging blow on her opponent, who parries with his staff. Another cut, the source of which Mr. Pearsall does not mention, represents a more deadly form of duel between a man and a woman, who fight bare-headed and naked to the girdle, with small falchions, like knives; and wounds are shown on both their persons.

A singular form of duel, pictured in Paulus Kall’s book, is that with “_shilts_,” used as weapons both of attack and defence, sometimes alone, and at others in conjunction with daggers held in the disengaged hand. To judge from the wood-cuts this great oblong shield is about 4½ feet long by about 18 inches broad; and though the examples depicted differ somewhat, they are all garnished at the head, foot, and sides with a greater or less number of projecting spears or spurs, for the purposes of attack. The combatants are wearing greyish-brown tight-fitting dresses and hoods; the faces, hands and legs are left bare. The preliminaries completed, the duelists are conducted into the lists by an official; each combatant brings a bier and is accompanied by his relations and a confessor. The principals are then sworn, their weapons handed to them, and the onset sounded. It would appear from the surrounding details and the character of the officials concerned, that this form of duel appertained to members of the privileged class.

A fourth kind of duel was fought with spiked clubs (or more usually with swords) and “_der Hutt_,” a shield formed like a hat; and Kall’s wood-cut pictures the duelists as being clad in garments of cloth. The shields vary in size from very small to very large, the latter kind being employed in conjunction with spiked clubs, the former with swords. Another form of duel is with the “_streit-axt_” (_bec de faucon_), the variety of battle-axe with a hammer on one side of the head and a spike, like that of a pick, on the other. Here the champions fight in complete armour; and besides axes they carry swords and daggers. In the Gotha codex is a drawing entitled, “_Dass ist wie sich ainer versorgen sol der zu gewapenter Hand fechten sol_,” meaning that this is the equipment for a duel with gauntlets. The duelist is shown as being anointed with oil by his armourer preparatory to combat; and the items of his body-armour stand ready to be put on in their turn. Some of the wood-cuts in Paulus Kall’s work afford representations of such duels; and the text furnishes directions as to how they were to be conducted. It was from this kind of legal duel, more especially, that combats on foot in the lists at a _pas d’armes_ had their origin.

The last form of duel referred to in Mr. Pearsall’s paper is one with two-handed swords; and a wood-cut of Paulus Kall’s illustrates a combat of the kind, in which the duelists are clad in jerkins and long hose. The swords appear to measure about five feet in length. These clumsy and unwieldy weapons were for striking and parrying, but could not be employed effectively at close quarters.

An original manuscript in the possession of Mr. Richard Bull, F.S.A., at the commencement of the nineteenth century, contains the orders, rules and regulations issued by Thomas Duke of Gloucester, the Constable of England, in the reign of King Richard II, 1377-99, for observance in cases of trial by combat.[265] They differ little from those of an earlier period, but the particulars given of the lists may be noted with advantage. They run:—

“The Kinge shall finde the feeld to fight in and the listes shalbe made and deuised by the Constable and it is to be considered that the listes must be 60 pace longe and equally made without greate stones the grounde flat and 40 paces brode in good order and that the grounde be harde stable and firme and that the lists be strongly barred abowt with one dore in the este an other in the weste with good and stronge barres seven foote highe or more than a horse can leape over them.”

The weapons were to be “glayues,”[266] long sword, short sword and dagger.

There are other copies of these rules extant besides the one given in the _Antiquarian Repertory_, viz., Ashmole MS. 856, 83-89, and that among a MS. Collection of Ordinances of Chivalry of the fifteenth century, belonging to Lord Hastings. The last-named document is copied in Lord Dillon’s paper on these Hastings MS.,[267] published in _Archæologia_, Vol. LVII, and is reproduced in our Appendix H, but with the long preamble left out. These three copies of the rules for conducting judicial duels in the reign of Richard II vary somewhat; for instance, glaives[268] are mentioned in the two first copies as being among the weapons employed in these combats, but not in the last.

RULES FOR JUDICIAL COMBATS IN THE REIGN OF RICHARD III[269]

A case lodged by an appellant should be pleaded in the court before the constable and marshal, and if the accusation cannot be substantiated by witnesses, a recourse to trial by combat may be granted by the Crown. Should a judicial duel be decided on, the time and place of combat are fixed by the constable; the weapons to be “glayves,” long-swords, short swords and daggers. Sureties to be found by both parties to keep their day, and no attempt shall be made to injure the plaintiff or defendant before the day of battle.

The general rules and arrangements do not differ materially from those of earlier reigns, though here it is mentioned that spears of equal length were issued to the combatants, thus explaining the term “glayves.”

If the charge be one of treason the vanquished shall be stripped of his armour, and a piece of the railings of the lists broken down, and he shall be drawn through the lists by horses to the place of execution.

A judicial combat took place at Quesnoy in 1405, Duke William, Count of Hainult, sitting as judge. The parties were two gentlemen, Bournecte the appellant and Bounaige the defendant. The accusation was that of murder. Lists were erected at the expense of the Duke, and the fight commenced by each combatant hurling his lance at the other, but without effect; they then drew their swords, and Bournecte soon overcame his adversary, who confessed his crime, and was ordered by the judge to be beheaded. This was a duel between members of the privileged class.

A challenge for a duel between Henry Inglose, Esq., and Sir John Tiptoft, Knt., to be fought before the Duke of Bedford, high constable, in 1415. (Cotton MS. Titus. C. 28.)

A trial by combat took place at Arras in the year 1431, the Duke of Burgundy sitting as judge. The charge was one of treason, and about the time of the duel many allegiances were being transferred from Burgundy to France. The appellant, Maillotin de Bours, had charged the defendant, Hector de Flavy, with having expressed the intention of deserting the Burgundian interest in favour of that of France and with other contemplated acts of treason. On this information the Duke had de Flavy arrested and lodged in prison. The defendant, however, had many influential friends at Court, and through their good offices and representations he was at length received in audience by his sovereign, when he solemnly denied the charge, alleging that it was de Bours himself who had suggested the treason. The Duke then sent for the appellant, and the discussion between the parties waxed very violent until at length de Bours flung down his glove and demanded a trial by combat, God showing the right. The defendant, with the Duke’s permission, took up the glove and a day was fixed for the combat to take place, both parties giving security to keep their tryst. Lists were prepared and erected. Within them was the model of a sepulchre, for de Flavy had been dubbed a knight before the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. On the day of combat the Duke took his seat on the tribune prepared for him. De Maillotin first entered the lists armed at all points, attended by the Seigneur de Charny and other sponsors. He held a lance in one hand and one of his two swords in the other, and after making his obeisance to the Duke he retired to his pavilion. Sir Hector de Flavy entered the lists in like manner; he was influentially attended, and his charger was led in by the two sons of the Comte de St. Pol. After saluting the Duke he also retired to his pavilion. Both knights on re-entering the lists were led before the judge and swore on the Evangelists that their cause was just and true. They then took up their positions for combat and the onset was sounded, the fight beginning by each hurling his lance at the other, but without hurt to either. They then attacked with swords, each champion displaying the utmost courage and dexterity. The Duke at this juncture quite unexpectedly cast his bâton, thus putting an end to the fight. He commanded the attendance of the combatants to dine at his table on the morrow, when he reconciled them to each other.[270]

“In the foure and twentith yeare” of the reign of King Henry VI (1446) “the prior of Kilmaine appeached the earle of Ormond of treason. For triall whereof the place of combat was assigned in Smithfelde, and the barriers for the same there readie pitcht. Howbeit, in the meane time a doctor of diuinitie, named maister Gilbert Worthington, parson of saint Andrews in Holborne, and other honest men, made such sute with diligent labor and paines taking to the kings councell, that when the daie of combat approched, the quarell was taken into the kings hands and there ended”.[271]

“In the same year also, a certeine armourer was appeached of treason by a seruant of his owne. For proofe whereof a day was giun them to fight in Smithfield, insomuch that in conflict the said armourer was ouercome and slaine; but yet by misgouerning of himselfe. For in the morning, when he should come to the field fresh and fasting, his neighbours came to him, and gaue him wine and strong drinke in such excessiue sort, that he was therewith distempered, and reeled as he went, and so was slaine without guilt. As for the false seruant, he liued not long vnpunished; for being conuict of felonie in court of assise, he was judged to be hanged, and so he was, at Tilburne.”[272]

A good example of a judicial duel, fought in the year 1455, is given in _Histoire des Ducs De Bourgogne_.[273] It took place at Valenciennes, a town then belonging to the county of Hainault, which, with so many other rich manufacturing territories had fallen under the dominion of the dukes of Burgundy, by marriage or conquest. The privilege of sanctuary had been conferred on the town by its ancient counts, and the old rights and charters had been confirmed by the dukes their successors. A person named Mahiot Coquel, a tailor of Tournay, had murdered a man in that town, and he took refuge from justice in Valenciennes, claiming the right of sanctuary. Soon after his arrival a near relative of the murdered man named Jacotin Plouvier, met him in a street of the town and threatened vengeance against him for the murder of his kinsman; upon which Coquel applied to the magistracy, demanding their aid and counsel. The syndic then sent for Plouvier and reproached him with having the intention of violating the franchise of his town; but he denied this and claimed the right of lawful combat as against Coquel, at the same time throwing down a gage of battle. This, after some hesitation, Coquel lifted up; and a combat was allowed as being the law of the land, without being any infringement of the principle of sanctuary, which only applied to protection from the officers of justice. The parties were lodged in prison in separate cells, and seconds were appointed to arrange the preliminaries for the fight; when the Comte de Charolais, afterwards Charles the Bold, on being informed of the case, acting in the capacity of lieutenant-general for his father Duke Philippe le Bon, of Burgundy, ordered the matter to be referred to his council for judgment. The town authorities then applied to the Duke their sovereign lord for the maintenance of their ancient rights, when all opposition to the combat was withdrawn; the Duke announcing his intention of being present, with his son the Comte de Charolais, to view the fight. Lists were erected, not in the form usual for the tourney, but round and with only a single entrance. The judges of the fight were the provosts of the town of Valenciennes and of the county of Hainault, the Duke and his son being merely spectators. Two seats draped with black cloth were placed facing each other in the middle of the lists, and the combatants were conducted to them and sworn on the Evangelists. The two champions were clad in leathern garments, close-fitting and laced down the middles, the arms and legs bare. These corselets were well greased so that neither of the parties could easily grip the other. Their hands were rubbed with ashes for the better grasping of their weapons, and each held a piece of sugar in his mouth as a preventive against their throats becoming parched with the heat. Their weapons were knotted clubs, equal in weight and length and obtusely pointed at the narrower ends, and triangular shields, painted red. When the signal for combat had been given Mahiot Coquel, who was the shorter and weaker man of the two, grasped a handful of sand with which the lists were strewn, and threw it into the eyes of his opponent. This nearly blinded Jacotin for the moment, and he received a heavy blow in the face from the club of his adversary, but on recovering somewhat he set upon Mahiot and seizing him by the arm threw him violently to the ground, then placing his knees on his stomach, to the horror of the spectators, he kept steadily prodding Mahiot between the eyes with the pointed end of his club until he was dead. The body was then dragged by the hangman from the lists to the gallows.

Lacroix in _Military an Religious Life in the Middle Ages, ＆c._, gives a picture of a judicial duel of the knightly kind, fought on foot. It is copied from a miniature in the _Conquêtes de Charlemagne_, a MS., in the National Library at Paris. The combatants are armed at all points; their weapons are swords; and the lists, of open railings, are octagonal in form.

The general course of procedure in these matters continued much the same up to and including the reign of Henry VIII. A manuscript of that reign, sometime belonging to Sir Edward Wyndham, Kt., Marshal to the Camp, gives particulars,[274] The form and size of the lists and counter-lists are as before; also the kind of weapons to be employed. The defendant, if he appear not, is called by proclamation, made by the marshal of the king of “Heraults of that province wherein the Battail is to be deraigned.” The bill of challenge of the appellant and the answer of the defendant is read to them and they take their oaths:—

1. That their appeal and defence is true. 2. That neither hath advantage of the other in weapons. 3. That each will do his best to vanquish his enemy.

The combatants being ready, the constable and marshal, sitting at the king’s feet, order the onset to be sounded, pronouncing the words in high voice, “Lesses les aller et fair leur devoir.”

“In the fight if either of the parties do give sign of yielding or if the king, being present, do cry ‘Hoe,’ the constable and marshall do part them and observe precisely who hathe advantage or disadvantage either of the other at that instant, for if they should be awarded to fight again, they are to be put in the same position as they were before.”

“If the king take up the matter they are brought honourably out of the lists, neither having precedency over the other.”

If the “Battail” be performed and one party be vanquished then “in case of Treason the rayles of the lists are broken down, and the party vanquished is drawn at a Horse-tayl and carried presently to execution.”

The last instance of a duly authorised legal duel in France was that between François de Vivonne de la Chataignerie and Guy Chabot de Jarnac, which took place at St. Germain-en-Laye in 1547, in the presence of the king (Henry II.) It is doubly remarkable in that it contributed a new and subtil stroke of the sword, the “coup de Jarnac,” and that it led to an edict being issued against duelling. This ordeal by combat resulted in the death of de la Chataignerie.

Judicial Duel in 1548, 2nd Edward VI, between one Newton, a Scot, and a gentleman named Hamilton; the former being charged with uttering opprobrious epithets against His Majesty of England. Lists were erected in the market-place of Haddington, and at the time appointed the parties entered them for combat, clad in their doublets and hose, and armed with sword, buckler and dagger. The fight began with great spirit, Hamilton following his adversary up to the very railing of the lists, whereupon Newton struck him on the leg with his sword inflicting a great gash, upon which he fell to the ground and was slain. This ending of the fight was looked upon as a miscarriage of justice.[275]

The Abbé de Brantôme reports a trial by combat which took place about the middle of the sixteenth century, without the sanction of either king or parliament. The appellant was a Seigneur de Fandilles who charged the defendant, the Baron de Guerres of Lorraine, with an odious crime; and it was mutually agreed that the matter be referred to the judgment of God, in battle in the lists. The fight took place on foot with “bastardes” (hand and a half swords) in the lists at Sedan, a M. de Bouillon acting as judge. De Fandilles severely wounded his adversary in the thigh with a stroke of his powerful weapon, and the loss of blood was so great that the defendant could hardly keep his feet, at length falling to the ground. The lists were as usual freely strewn with sand, and the baron clutched handfuls of it which he threw into the eyes of his opponent, who was blinded for the time being and incapacitated from continuing the combat. This ending of the duel by means of an action strictly forbidden by the laws of the duello caused great disputes between the seconds and friends of both parties; and the matter was further complicated by a fall of the stand which afforded accommodation to the judge and spectators. This was certainly an irregular judicial duel, without any sanction at law, though the legal forms were observed.

Brantôme narrates several other duels.

In Harleian M.S., Vol. III, 505, 7021-22, is a catalogue of judicial combats anciently granted by the kings of England.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth judicial duels had become rare, and the crown employed all its influence in their restraint. Fierce polemics had arisen in regard to the lawfulness or otherwise of the practice, and the conscience of the nation had been thoroughly aroused against them by reason of cases of more than suspected miscarriage of justice coming to light. Strong influence was brought to bear on the law courts to place all possible obstacles in the way of granting licences for such combats, and judges, at that time more especially, usually managed that disputes concerning the possession of land should be settled in the law courts without any resort to the ordeal of battle. Many treatises were written against the practice, examples of which follow: Ashmole MSS., No. 856, p. 10. “Duello foild. The whole proceedings in the orderly dissolveing of a designe for single fight betweene two valient gentlemen; by occasion whereof the unlawfulnesse of a duello is preparatorily disputed, according to the rules of honour and right reason; written by the Lord Henry Howard Earle of Northampton.” 126-145, p. 11. “A Discourse touching the unlawfulnesse of private combates, written by Sir Edward Cooke Lord Chiefe Justice of England, at the request of the Lord Henry Howard Earle of Northampton.” (3 Oct., 1609.) 146-148. “Ex MS. in Bibl’ Hatton.”

Cotton MS. Titus. Fol. 33. A treatise on duels, in two books. (239.) Fol. 38. Two papers on measures taken against duels. (402.) Fol. 44. A paper concerning laws against duels. (416.)

On the 18th June, 1571, a judicial duel was ordered to take place, the principals being Simon Low and John Kime, who were to fight by proxy in the persons of George Thome and Henry Nailer, respectively. The dispute between the parties related to the possession of some land; and the weapons for the intended fight were to be bastons and leathern shields. A plot of ground, 21 yards square, in Tothill Fields, was doubly railed in for the fight, and a stand connected with it was erected for the chief justice, as representing the court of common pleas. Behind it two tents were pitched for the use of the combatants. The Queen was much against the fighting, and the combat did not come off after all, for the champion of the appellant failed at the last moment to put in an appearance, so the plaintiff was non-suited.

Duels of the privileged order naturally survived those of the proletariat. Ashmole MS., No. 856, p. 7, gives “The manner of the challendge made by the Earle of Northumberland against Sir Francis Veare,” both by letter dated 24 Apr. 1602, and by inter-messages, until forbidden by the Queen’s commandment. (107-111.) Ex. MS. in Bibl’ Hatton, and, under the same number, P. 16. “The manner of Donald Ld Rey, and David Ramsey esq. their comeing and carriage at their tryall, upon monday, the 28 of November, 1631, before the Ld of Lynsey, Lord High Constable of England, and others.” This is a very full report of the trial. (175-227.) Under No. 856, p. 15. “His MAᵗˢ: declaration against duells, published at his chappell at Bruxells upon sonday the 24th of November 1658.” (172.)

Though practically in abeyance for a long period the law for an appeal to combat had remained on the statute book; and a trial by battle was demanded as late as the year 1817, in the case of Thornton _v._ Ashford. The judge, Lord Ellenborough, pronounced “that the general law of the land is that there shall be a trial by battle in case of appeal unless the parties bring themselves within the scope of one of the exemptions.” The suit was allowed, but the challenge being refused no combat ensued. The law was repealed in the following year (1818).[276]

FOOTNOTES:

[244] _Origines Juridiciales_, p. 65.

[245] Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_, I, 39.

[246] Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_, I, 147.

[247] _Origines Juridiciales_, p. 79.

[248] Published in 1671, by William Dugdale Esquire, Norroy King of Arms, later Sir William and Garter King of Arms; the ordinances, etc., being those in operation in the reign of Henry II, set forth by Ranulph de Glanville, Justice of England, page 65.

[249] _Origines_, p. 68.

[250] Bastons were sometimes headed with a double beak, like a pick. Their usual length was three feet, though shorter ones could be used in the event of combatants mutually wishing it.

[251] Vol. I, p. 375.

[252] _Theatre of Honour and Knighthood_, Chap. II, p. 423, written at Paris _anno_ 1619.

[253] Chap. 2, p. 423.

[254] _Anciens Mémoires Du XIV Siècle_, I, 505.

[255] See Montfaucon, Tom III, Pl. 18.

[256] Holinshed’s _Chronicles_, II, 727.

[257] _Ancient Armour and Weapons of War_, II, 342.

[258] Plate 58.

[259] Page 371.

[260] Holinshed, II, 844. Harleian MS., III, 6079, Art. 36, gives an account of this duel.

[261] _Theatre of Honour, etc._, p. 459.

[262] _Theatre of Honour, etc._, p. 459.

[263] _Archæologia_, XXIX, 348.

[264] Probably a fencing master.

[265] _Antiquarian Repertory_, II, 210.

[266] The glaive here mentioned is not the weapon usually known by that name, but the lance: for it will be observed in some later rules given on these pages that “spears of equal length” were to be issued to the combatants. Lances were often termed glaives at this period, and in such combats were shortened to five feet.

[267] Appendix B.

[268] Clayues.

[269] _Antiquarian Repertory_, 1, 152.

[270] _Chronique de Monstrelet_, Liv. II, Chap. CII.

[271] Holinshed, III, 210.

[272] _Ibid._

[273] II, 182.

[274] _Origines Juridiciales_, p. 78.

[275] Holinshed III, 890.

[276] 59 Geo. III, c. 46.

APPENDIX A

TOURNEY

ABSTRACTS of the Ashmolean Manuscripts, regarding the Tourney.[277]

No. 764. p. 6. “Cy sensuyt la façon des criz de Tournois et des Joustes. _Cy peut on à prendre à crier et à publier pour ceulx qui en seront dignes._” 31-43.

On the reverse of the last leaf is a picture of the Joust, whereon two combatants on horseback, bearing their crests, are fighting with lances within the lists.

No. 1105. p. 9. Extracts from various records about Tournaments and Knighthood. 200 _et seq._, 210.

No. 840. p. 73. A Justing-cheque, showing how the spears were broken. 298.

No. 763. II. p. 5. Rules, etc. 148-149.

“The Ordinaunce, statutes and rules made by John Lord Typtofte, Erle of Worcester, Countstable of England by the Kinges commaundment, at Windsour the 29 of May ao sexto Edwardi quarti, to be observed and kepte in all manner of Justes of pees royall with in this realme of England.”

MS. copies of these ordinances are not uncommon, and much differing from each other. They are printed in _Harrington’s Nugae Antiquae_ by Park; and in Dr. Meyrick’s _Critical Essay on antient armor_, II, 179-186, with valuable notes from the MS. M. 6, in the Heralds’ College.

No. 763. p. 5. 6. The same Ordinaunce and statutes. 181. Rules for combatants “At Tornay.” 149b.

No. 857. p. 213. “Rights due att the tournay. _Firste the Kinge of Armes._...” 506.

No. 1115. p. 43. Preamble to articles of tilting, addressed unto the King. 92.

No. 860. The “Round Table” prohibited, 36 Hen. III, 88.[278]

No. 1109. p. 191. Tournament at Windsor, Names of the combatants and judges in a “Course at feild at Windsor the 17th of Nov: 1593, ao regni reginae.” 36. 154b.

No. 856. p. 5. Justing at the marriage of Richard Duke of York (1477). A narrative, by an eye-witness, of the marriage of Richard Duke of York, and Ann daughter of the Duke of Norfolk, and of the grand justing then celebrated in 1477, _and the 17th yeare of King Edward IV_. 94-104. Transcribed “Ex MS. in praefat’ Bibl’ Hatton.”

This article is fully as curious as the narrative of the justing of Anthony Lord Scales, which was published by W. H. B. in the _Excerpta Historica_, in June, 1830.

No. 1116. p. 10. Justs at Westminster. (1511.)

“Justes houlden at Westminster the xijth daie of Februar by the Kinges grace (Henry VIII) called _Cueur Loyal_, the Lord William of Devon _Bon Voloir_, Sʳ Thomas Knivet _Valiant Desire_, and Edward Nevell _Joyous Penser_, with the articles and courses of the said Justes etc.” 109-110b.

The articles begin thus—“The noble lady Renowne considering the good and gracious fortune....” The “courses” are tilting lists for the two days (Wednesday and Thursday, 12-13 Feb., 1511,) marked with strokes, and accounts of the “best joustres.”

p. 56. “The appoynctement of the standinge schaffoldes in the Kinges pallace of Westminster, at his justes. _First next unto the King on his right hande the Earles_,” _etc._ 47 b.

No. 837. p. 17. The Field of the Cloth of Gold at Guisnes (1520).

“Ce sont les noms des princes, prellatz, et grans seigneurs de France, qui estoient en la compaignie de Roy de France quant le Roy (Henry VIII) Dengleterre et led’ sr le Roy (Francois) sentrevyrent et ordonnerent les Joustes et Tournoys qui sensuyvent.” 179ba.

Prefixed to the title is a stanza of 5 lines, inviting to the justs.

No. 1116. p. 7*. The Field of the Cloth of Gold at Guisnes (1520).

“The proclamacōn in Frenche of the articles of the Justes and other feates of armes at the meeting of the aforesaid Kinges (Henry and Francois) at Guisnes, proclaimed through the realme of France by Thomas Benolt al’s Clarencieux King of Armes. _Comme ainsi soit louange_ ...” 105-7b.

p. 8. “The lettres of savegarde given by the said King of England unto Thomas Walle al’s Norrey King of Armes, for the proclamacōn of the same Joustes in the parties of Almayn and the contrye of Germania, wch Norrey proclamed thē as welle in French for the lowe contreys, as in high Dutch as hereafter followeth etc.” 107b-108b. Dated 1520.

p. 5*. Narrative of “The meating of the King of England (and) the Emperor at Canterburie, and the meating of the said King and the French King at Guysnes, Anno D’ni 1520.” 100-3b.

No. 837. p. 21. Running at the Ring (t. Edw. VI?).

“These persones[279] here underwrytten beinge one of the Kinges part the playntyff, and the other wt th erle of Rutland defendant, dyd run at ye rynge iiij course every man, at wch tyme mone toke the ryng but only Mr. Hayward and Mr. Constable beinge wt the defendant,” etc. 185a.

Tourneys t. Eliz.

p. 43. The Challenge of four Knights errant, the Earl of Oxford, Charles Howard, Sir Henry Lee, and Sir Chr. Hatton; against all comers, at the tilt, tourney and barriours; addressed unto the Queen for permission to perform the same. 245.

Note that the said challenge was proclaimed by Clarencieux, on twelfth-night, 1570; and that the exercises were performed on 1, 2, and 6 May. 245b.

Written invertedly by another hand. Other papers relating to the same affair are in No. 845, artt. 37, 39. No. 845. II, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and at p. 599.

No. 845. p. 36. Tilting-list and cheque, at a tourney between the Earl of Oxford, Charles Howard, Sir Hen. Lea, and Chr. Hatton, challengers, and seven sets of comers; with their arms tricked. 164. See No. 837, Art. XLIIII.

p. 38. A Tilting-list, showing the antagonists of the Earl of Oxford and others. 167a.

p. 37. “These be the names of the noblemen and gentlemen, that for the honor of the Queenes Maᵗⁱᵉ did their endevor at the Tylt at Westminster on the xvijth day of November, being the first day of the xxiiijth yere of the reigne of queene Elizabeth,” etc. (1581). 165.

p. 39. “Hastiludium apud Westm’ die Solis 6. Decembris 1584, coram Regina, inter nuptos decem et tot coelibes.” 168.

p. 37. “The Tourney holden at Westminster, on monday the 15 of May, 1581, when the prince Delphine of Auvergne and other the Frenshe commissioners were here.” 166a-5b.

p. 40. Proclamation (in French) of the adjudged conduct of combatants, and award of the prize, at a jousting before Queen Elizabeth. 171b.

p. 41. Proclamation (in English) of the adjudgement of prizes to Don Fredericque de Teledo, and other foreign nobles, on an other occasion. 171a.

Draught of another proclamation (in English) concerning the conduct of gentlemen at the tilt and tourney, not named. 170a.

No. 837. p. 5. “The manner of the first cominge into the tiltyard, of the most high and mighty prince Charles Prince of Wales, sonne and heir apparent of our sovereign lo. Kinge James, on friday the xxiiijth of March 1619; which was in the most princely and royall manner that had bene sene many yeares before.” 129-132.

An original paper, with notes and corrections by one of the Heralds. This art. is recorded in the Heralds’ MS., M. 3. f. 1-3b.

No. 1127. p. XIV. 2. Tournament of the Knight of the Royal Amaranthus. In the first quarter of the 17th century. 198-9b.

No. 1116. p. 9*. “The manner how the price[280] shall be given at Joustes of peace royall, and for what considercōns it should be forfeited and lost.

First who so breaketh most speeres,” etc. 108b.

p. 11*. “A demonstracōn by John Writh alias Garter, to King Edward the Fourth, touching three Knyghtes of high Almayn wch came to do arms in England, with the instruccōns by them geven unto the saide Gartr and the articles of their feates and enterprise.” 111-3b. The year must have been 1473.

No. 763. p. 16. “The office of a Kinge at Armes. Fyrst as nyghe as he canne he shall take knowledge and kepe recorde of creastes cognissances and auntient used wordes,” etc. 158ab.

No. 837. p. 8. “The definition of an Esquire, and the severall sortes of them according to the custome and usage of England. _An esquire called in Latine armiger_ ...” 162a.

No. 1116. p. 111. The Names and Arms of the Sovereigns and Knights or the Order of the Golden Fleece (Toison d’or), from its institution in 1429 to the twenty-third festival of the Order, which was holden by King Philip of Spain, 12 Aug. 1559; historical accounts of the celebration of the feasts, in French. ff. 137b-186.

The MS. is beautifully written, with the arms tricked (four on each page), by Robert Glover, Somerset Herald.

p. 88. Lists of the Knights, and notes of the celebration of S. George’s feast, in 1589 and 1593, at Westminster. 67a.

p. 89. Lists of Knights, and notes of the celebration of S. George’s feast, in 1584, at Westminster, and 15 Apr. 1585, at Windsor. 67b.

No. 837. p. XXVI. “The Office of ye Marshall.” 198ab.

No. 1127. p. XIII. “The Statutes of the Order of the Golden Fleece” (27 Nov. 1431); and “The Ordinances for the Officers of the Order.” 139-166-167-175b.

FOOTNOTES:

[277] Catalogue by William Henry Black. Oxford. 1845.

[278] Though indexed this item is not in the catalogue.

[279] The Marquis of Northampton and others, 14 on each side.

[280] Prize.

APPENDIX B

HARLEIAN MS. RELATING TO THE TOURNAMENT

CATALOGUE

Vol. Page Cod. Art. I. 17 69 1-3. Tournament held on the marriage of Richard Duke of York, son of Edward IV. I. 17 69 4-5. On the birth of Princess Mary? Daughter of Henry VIII. I. 17 69 6-7. Creation of Henry VIII. I. 17 69 8. Challenge to hold a Justs-Royall and Tourney at Westminster. I. 18 69 13. At Greenwich, _temp._ Henry VIII. I. 18 69 16. Westminster, _temp._ Henry VIII. I. 18 69 24. On the marriage of Prince Arthur. I. 18 69 11. Challenges to tournaments of Philip de Bouton and others. I. 18 69 12. Uladislaus of Bodna and others. I. 18 69 20. Frederick de Toledo and others. I. 18 69 14. Regulations concerning tournaments by Parliament of England. I. 165 293 123-4. By Richard I. I. 18 69 10. Relation (in French) of Battel of Justs held in the city of Tours. I. 18 69 15. Copy of Chapitres of certain Feats of Arms. I. 18 69 18. Declarations and Conditions of Performing Feats of Arms. I. 18 69 19. Chalenge of 6 Noble Persons to the Justs. I. 18 69 21. Form of Proclamation to be made by the King of Arms. I. 18 69 22. Fees appertyning to the Officers of Armes. I. 18 69 23. The Maner ＆ Order of Combating within Lystes. I. 18 69 17. } II. 12 1354 11. _et seq._ } Regulations Concerning } Tournaments. By John } Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester. II. 226 1776 43. } III. 316 6064 80. } III. 215 4888 20. General Challenge of Earls of Lenox, etc.

EXTRACTS

I. 17 69 1-3. 1. The Proclamation, whereby Six Gentlemen challenged all Comers at the Just-Roiall: To Runne in Ostling-Harneis alonge a Tilt: And to strike 13 strokes with Swords; upon the Marriage of Richard Duke of York (son to K. Edward IV.) with Anne Mowbray Daughter to the Duke of Norfolk. After which Proclamation, follow the Articles, ＆ Draughts of the Shields. 1

2. The Challenge of the LadieMaie’s Servants, to all comers, to be performed at Greenwich. To Runne 8 Courses. To shoot Standart Arrowe, or Flight. To strike 8 Strokes with Swords Rebated. To wrestle all manner of Wayes. To Fight on Foot with Speares Rebated, and afterwards to strike 8 Strokes with Swords, with Gripe, or otherwise. To Call the Barre on Foote, and with the Arme; both Heavie and Light. 2b

Vol. Page Cod. Art. I. 17 69 1-3. 3. Here followe the Articles which fower Gentlemen have Enterprised to doe by the Kings Commaundment ＆ for the Pleasure of the Ladyes, which also