which was in general as quiet as a lamb, became like a raging tiger, every time he saw the person who had murdered his master. This circumstance excited great astonishment; and strong suspicions having arisen, it was remembered that Marquir, on several occasions, had betrayed symptoms of enmity to Aubry, and various other circumstances being combined, brought the matter almost to a certainty. The king hearing of the affair, was desirous of being convinced with his own eyes, whether or not the dog was in the right; when, the parties being brought before him, the dog, which fawned upon every body else, attacked the Marquis with the utmost violence as soon as he perceived him enter. The king considering this to be a fair occasion for the ordeal, which was at that time customary upon many less important occasions, ordered the fate of the baron to be determined by single combat. Charles instantly appointed the time and place: the chevalier entered the list armed with his lance,' and the dog was let loose upon him. A most dreadful contest now took place. The chevalier made a thrust, but the dog springing aside, seized him by the throat and

I

This certainly was giving Marquir a great advantage over the dog, insomuch, that it might be deemed ten to one in his favor, though evidently guilty, on the very strong circumstantial evidence above related. Yet it might be thought that Marquir unarmed, could have had no chance with the dog; but this would have entirely depended on the kind of man and kind of dog; some dogs would be an overmatch for most men; but some men unarmed, in any manner would be an over-match for any dog; an instance of which, amongst many others that might be mentioned, occurred some years back in the city of Londonderry, when a man undertook to fight a very fierce and powerful bull-dog, merely for a trifling bet. The place appointed was in the diamond-a square in the center of the city, where a great concourse of people assembled to witness so unprecedented a contest. When the hour came, the man appeared, pulled off his clothes, entered the ring, and threw off his shirt, whilst the butcher to whom the dog belonged, held the eager animal, on the farther side of the ring, by the neck. When the man, without any apparent intimidation, said he was ready, the dog was slipt at him, and running in a crouchant attitude till within about four feet distance, where he made a spring at the man's throat; the man at the same instant dextrously striking him with the edge of his hand across the wind-pipe, which he seconded with a powerful kick in the stomach, which flung the dog upon his back at some distance; but he immediately recovered, and made a like bound at his throat, which was invariably his object, which the man in like manner parried, hitting him as before with his foot. The dog for seven or eight times renewed the attack, whilst the man never once missed his blows, or received a scratch. At length the dog could rise no more, though not killed, when the man stepped forward, and taking a knife from his breeches pocket, took the dog with an intention to cut his throat, but the butcher (amazed at seeing his dog thus conquered, that had beaten so many bulls) called out that he would give five pounds to save his life, which the other readily agreed to, whilst the surrounding and astonished multitude filled his hat with silver and copper.

threw him down. The villain now confessed his crime, and Charles, that the remembrance of the faithful animal might be handed down to posterity, caused to be erected to him, in the forest where the murder had been committed, a marble monument with a suitable inscription. And thus the law of duelling, as an ordeal trial, continued in France till the reign of Henry IV. and also of Francis I. in 1547.

But this regulation, in the intervening time, was but little regarded, nor was it any disapprobation of the principal grounds, that induced Henry to wish its restraint (for he was himself a victorious knight) but because one' of his favorites had fallen a victim to it, in his own presence. He therefore determined never to allow any duel of that kind hereafter, and he published an edict to that effect, which seems to have been the first regular and royal mandate against duelling in France. But notions of gallantry and honor had now arisen to such an height, that it was doubtful whether this simple prohibition of his royal assent did not serve to "increase" the number of private duels. For before this reign trials of this nature were only permitted on serious occasions, or in instances of great personal offence; and they who offered to fight without previously obtaining royal permission, were deemed guilty of high treason against the king's authority. But as no such consent was now to be obtained, every man conceived himself a judge of his own case, and dreaded the least imputation on his personal courage: he was the more ready to stretch the usual points of honor than to curtail them. Honor likewise is of such a delicate and tender nature, as to exert itself most in satisfying those points which are not of strict legal obligations; which sensibility, when properly applied, is truly amiable and generous; but the same nice texture of honor which leads the liberal mind to take no advantage of the "silence" of law, should also teach its

This famous duel was fought in the year 1547, in the square of the castle of St. Germain, before the king and the whole court, with the greatest solemnity. The champions were the Lords of Chataigneraie and Tarnae, who were neighbors and kinsmen. The cause was the honor of Tarnae's mother-in-law, with whom Chataigneraie asserted that Tarnae held improper familiarity. The lie was given to Chataigneraie's assertions, and supplication made to the king to order a trial by combat to the last rigor. The ceremonials of this duel are to be seen at large in M. Courtard de Massi's, or in Cockburne's History of Duelling. The event was the defeat of Chataigneraie, who, not able to bear his shame and disgrace, tore open his wounds after the surgeons had dressed them, and expired. The king was so much hurt at the defeat of his favorite (for such he was) that he declared another duel of this sort should never be fought in his court. It is remarked of this king, that he began his reign by assenting to this dreadful combat, and ended it by being killed himself (as was before related) in a mock fight, during a time of public rejoicing.

possessor not to act in defiance" of law a line of conduct, however, not sufficiently marked by the modern decrees and forms of interdiction to suppress legal proceedings, and therefore Henry's prohibition was not much attended to, as pardons were so easily obtained for fighting without previous permission.

We are now come to that period in which the great and good Sully took so much pains, both with individuals and with his Prince, Henry the Fourth, totally to abolish a bloody practice which was risen to a truly formidable height. For during the first eighteen years of this king's reign (reckoning from the death of Henry the Third) not fewer than four thousand gentlemen are said to have perished by the duel in France. But it must be remembered that these were times of great religious feuds, as well as of civil commotions; both which contributed to produce a multitude of personal disputes. The king himself was partial to the practice of the duel, though he might lament its evil effects: but at length, overcome by the complaint of his people, by the warm representations and even remonstrances of his faithful minister, he consulted with his nobility, his civil and military officers on the subject; and an edict for the severe punishment of duelling was concerted and published at Blois' in the year 1602.

The conse

This edict continued with additional severities. quences, however, produced little effect on the frequency of duels, from the king's readiness to grant pardons, particularly to such as had served him in the wars, many of which he was known to countenance, in favor of some particular duels.2 The king was very justly censured on this account, as annihilating the force of his own decree; but in truth these decrees were rather forced from him, through the necessity of the times, and the urgency of his minister, than adapted to his own ideas and private inclinations. -See Moore's Treatise on Duelling.

Cockburne on Duelling, p. 343, observes, as modern duels began, and were first indulged in France, so in no place have there

The purport of this edict was as follows: "Both challenger and challenged, with their seconds, are made guilty of lose-majesty, and are to be punished with death and confiscation of goods. All the great officers and magistrates of France, military and civil, are required to publish and execute this edict in their several jurisdictions, and are empowered to judge the differences which occasion duels. If the complainer of any affront refuse to accept the satisfaction these officers appoint, or the offender refuse to comply with it, he is to be imprisoned.-See Cockburne, p. 344, and the authorities he quotes.

Some time after passing this edict, Henry IV. is said to have given permission to Crequi to fight Don Philip of Savoy, with the addition of this encouraging compliment,-" If I were not a King, I would gladly offer myself to be your Second."-See Massi.

been so many or so severe edicts against them; to which the government there have been forced, by the continual mischiefs which happened from them, and the great disposition of that people towards them, which then at least was so great, that Monsieur Montagne says, " he believes, if three Frenchmen were punished for the same offence, they would not be a month before they went to daggers again;" and Monsieur Hardouin de Pearce particularly says, in his Life of Henry the Fourth," the enthusiastic rage of duels seized the spirit of the nobility and nation so much, that they lost more blood by private quarrels, in time of peace, than had been shed by their enemies in battle." This is confirmed by another, Monsieur de Chevalier, in his Les Ombres de Defunt, who tells us, that "in the province of Linnoisin there were killed six-score gentlemen in the space only of six or seven months; and that in ten years' time there had been granted above six thousand pardons, and one hundred and twenty of them in one expedition to Piedmont."

It was justly observed of Henry the Fourth of France, that his private countenance did more to promote duels than his public edict could do to restrain them, and that they would never cease till the king ceased to intermeddle in them. A similar behavior to that of the great Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, would have given energy to his edicts. It was in one of the Prussian campaigns, that the practice of duelling rose to a considerable height in the Swedish army, not only amongst persons of rank and fashion, but between the common soldiers. Upon which Gustavus published a severe edict, and denounced death against every delinquent. Soon after, a quarrel arose between two officers of very high command, and as they knew the king's firmness in preserving his word inviolable, they agreed to request an audience, and besought his permission to decide the affair like men of honor. His Majesty was indignant for a moment, but repressed his indignation with so much art, that they easily mistook his apparent consent with some reluctance; but with the appearance of pitying brave men, who thought themselves or relations injured, he said that he blamed them much for their mistaken notions concerning fame and glory; yet as this unreasonable determination appeared to be the result of deliberate reflection, to the best of their deluded capacity, he would allow them to decide the affair at the time and place specified; "and, gentlemen," said he, " I will be an eye-witness myself of your extraordinary valor and prowess." At the hour appointed Gustavus arrived, accompanied by a small body of infantry, whom he formed into a circle round the combatants. "Now," said he, "fight till one man dies ;" and calling the executioner of the army to

him (or the provost marshal, as the language then ran) " Friend,” added he, “the instant one is killed, behead the other before my eyes." Astonished with such inflexible firmness, the two generals, after pausing a moment, fell down on their knees and asked the king's forgiveness; who made them embrace each other, and give their promise to continue faithful friends to their last momentsas they both did with sincerity and thankfulness.-See Harte's History of the Life of Gustavus Adolphus.

The law was sometimes so vigorously executed in the reign of Lewis the Thirteenth, (surnamed the just) that they who were mortally wounded in a duel, were instantly dragged away to a gibbet and hanged up, that they might die as public examples to others, before they died of their wounds.-Page 347.

François de Montmorency (of noted memory) was the most renowned duellist of this reign, and then acknowledged brave fellows used to frequent his house, in order to practise the use of arms, and keep each other in proper wind, training and discipline. The tremendous Bouteville was bid to expect no pardon from the king if he persisted in these practices, upon which he said, "I will go to Paris and fight there, even in the Place Royale." He intimated this to the Marquis de Beurron, with whom he had an affair of honor; they met accordingly in the Place Royale, fought," and fled from Paris.-Beurron escaped to England with his second, Chocquet; but Bouteville, with his second, Des Chapelles, were taken, and being conducted to Paris, both were tried according to law, and beheaded, for so daring and outrageous an insult against the king's authority. This execution struck terror into the abettors of this bloody and now lawless custom.-See Massi.

The passion, or rather rage, for duelling, was carried to its highest pitch in the reign of Louis XIII. When acquaintances met, the usual inquiry was not then as now, "What is the news of the day?" but, "Who fought yesterday ?"-See Massi,

Sir Edward (afterwards Lord) Herbert, of Cherbury, when ambassador at the court of Louis XIII. displeased the favorite Leines, (whose pride was unbounded) by his manly and uncrouching spirit; and a duel would have terminated the dispute, had Leines been of the same manly spirit with Herbert. By misrepresentation the ambassador was recalled, and Leines procured Cadinet, his brother, Duke of Chaun, with a train of officers, all of whom had killed his man, to go ambassador extraordinary to England, to complain of Sir Edward Herbert. The inquiry proved in favor of Sir Edward, who fell on his knees to King James, in presence of the Duke of Buckingham, requesting that a trumpeter, if not an herald, might be sent to Leines, to tell him that he made a false relation of the whole affair; and that Sir Edward Herbert