ages. The urns were inscribed with the following lines: "Begone, ye thieves, why stand ye here to pry, Shooter's Hill, why so called. Shooter's Hill is so called, either because here thieves from the adjoining woods have shot at travellers and plundered them; or, more probably, because the archers frequented this spot to exercise themselves in their favourite diversion. It is a well-known fact, that King Henry the Eighth, and his Queen Catharine, came hither from Greenwich on May-day, and were received by two hundred archers, clad in green, one of them personating Robin Hood, as their captian, and all of them showing his majesty feats of activity. Baskets, antiquity of. The ancient Britons were noted for their ingenuity in making baskets, which they exported in large quantities. These baskets. were of very elegant workmanship, and bore a high price, and mentioned by Juvenal among the extravagant, expensive furniture of the Roman tables in his time: Addo et buscandes et mille escaria. "Add baskets, and a thousand other dishes." That these baskets were manufactured in Britain, we learn from the following epigram of Martial: "A basket I, by painted Britons wrought, The origin of Duelling. The word duel signifies a single combat, at a time and place appointed in consequence of a challenge. This custom came originally from the northern nations, among whom it was usual to decide all controversies by arms. Both the accuser and accused gave pledges to the judges on their respective behalf, and the custom prevailed so far amongst the Germans, Danes, and Franks, that none were excused from it but women, sick people, cripples, and such as were under 21 years of age, or above 60. Even ecclesi astics, priests, and monks, were obliged to find champions to fight in their stead. The punishment of the vanquished was either death by hanging, or beheading, or mutilation of members, according to the circumstances of the case. Duels were first admitted, not only on criminal occasions, but on some civil ones, for the maintenance of rights to estates and the like. In latter times, however, before they were entirely abolished, they were restrained to these four cases: 1stly, that the crime should be capital; 2dly, that it should be certain the crime was perpetrated; 3dly, the accused must by common fame be supposed guilty ;—and, 4thly, the matter not capable of proof by witnesses. Duels at present are used for single combat on some private quarrel, and must be premeditated, otherwise it is called a rencounter. If a person is killed in a duel, both the principals and seconds are guilty, whether the seconds engage or not. It is also a very high offence to challenge a person either by word or letter, or to be the messenger of a challenge. The general practice of duelling took its rise in the year 1527, at the breaking up of a treaty between the emperor Charles the Fifth and Francis the First. The former desired Francis' herald to acquaint his sov. ereign, that he would henceforth consider him, not only as a base violater of public faith, but as a stranger to the honour and integrity becoming a gentleman. Francis, too high-spirited to bear such an imputation, had recourse to an uncommon expedient to vindicate his character. He instantly sent back the herald with a cartel of defiance, in which he gave the Emperor the lie in form, challenged him to single combat, requiring him to name the time and place of the encounter, and the weapons with which he chose to fight. Charles, as he was not inferior to his rival in spirit or bravery, readily accepted the challenge; but, after several messages concerning the arrangement of all the circumstances relative to the combat, accompanied with mutual reproaches bordering on the most indecent scurrility, all thoughts of this duel, more becoming the heroes of romance than the two greatest monarchs of their age, were entirely laid aside. The example of two personages so illustrious, drew such general attention, and carried with it so much authority, that it had considerable influence in introducing an important change in manners over all Europe. Duels, as has already been observed, had been long permitted by the laws of the Eu ropean nations; and, forming a part of their jurisprudence, were authorized by the magistrates on many occasions, as the most proper method of terminating questions with regard to property, or of deciding in those which regarded crimes. But single combats being considered as solemn appeals to the omniscience and justice of the Supreme Being, they were allowed only in public cases, according to the prescription of law, and carried on in a judicial form. Men, accustomed to this manner of decision in courts of justice, were naturally led to apply it to personal and private quarrels. Duels, which at first could be appointed by the civil judge alone, were fought without the interposition of his authority, and in cases to which the laws did not extend. The transaction between Charles and Francis strongly countenanced this practice. Upon every affront or injury which seemed to touch his honour, a gentleman thought himself entitled ta draw his sword, and to call on his adversary to make reparation. Such an opinion introduced among men of fierce courage, of high spirit, and of rude manners,* where of * What's honour, did your lordship say? |