When there happened to
be several accusers, they were obliged to agree among themselves that
the action might be carried on by a single prosecutor; and, if they
could not agree, the person before whom the action was brought,
appointed one of them to prosecute the quarrel.
[136]
When a gentleman challenged a villain, he was obliged to present
himself on foot with buckler and baston; but if he came on horseback and
armed like a gentleman, they took. his horse and his arms from him and,
stripping him to his shirt, they compelled him to fight in that
condition with the villain.
[137]
Before the combat the magistrates ordered three bans to be
published. By the first the relatives of the parties were commanded to
retire; by the second the people were warned to be silent; and the third
prohibited the giving of any assistance to either of the parties, under
severe penalties, nay, even on pain of death if by this assistance
either of the combatants should happen to be vanquished.
[138]
The officers belonging to the civil magistrate
[139]
guarded the list
or enclosure where the battle was fought; and in case either of the
parties declared himself desirous of peace, they took particular notice
of the actual state in which they mutually stood at that very moment, to
the end that they might be restored to the same situation in case they
did not come to an understanding.
[140]
When the pledges were received either for a crime or for false
judgment, the parties could not make up the matter without the consent
of the lord; and when one of the parties was overcome, there could be no
accommodation without the permission of the count, which had some
analogy to our letters of grace.
[141]
But if it happened to be a capital crime, and the lord, corrupted by
presents, consented to an accommodation, he was obliged to pay a fine of
sixty livres, and the right he had of punishing the malefactor devolved
upon the count.
[142]
There were a great many people incapable either of offering, or of
accepting battle. But liberty was given them, on cause being shown, to
choose a champion; and that he might have a stronger interest in
defending the party in whose behalf he appeared, his hand was cut off if
he lost the battle.
[143]
When capital laws were made in the last century against duels,
perhaps it would have been sufficient to have deprived a warrior of his
military capacity by the loss of his hand; nothing in general being a
greater mortification to mankind than to survive the loss of their
character.
When, in capital cases, the duel was fought by champions, the
parties were placed where they could not behold the battle; each was
bound with the cord that was to be used at his execution in case his
champion was overcome.
[144]
The person overcome in battle did not always
lose the point contested; if, for instance, they fought on an
imparlance, he lost only the imparlance.
[145]
