[443] Assises de l’Echiquier de Normandie, p. 174 (Marnier).
[444] Laurière, Table Chron. des Ordonnances, p. 105.
[445] Beaumanoir, op. cit. cap. lxi. §§ 9, 10.—Établissements de S. Louis, Liv. I. chap. lxxxii.
[446] Beaumanoir, cap. lxiv. § 3.
[447] Conseil, ch. XXI. Tit. xiv.
[448] Actes du Parlement de Paris, T. I. No. 2269 A. p. 217.
[449] Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. 50, 62. Lib. III. c. 29, 65.—Sachsische Weichbild xxxiii. xxxv. Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccclxxxv. §§ 14, 15 (Ed. Schilteri). According to some MSS. of the latter, however, this privilege of declining the challenge of an inferior was not allowed in cases of homicide.—“Ibi enim corpus corpori opponitur”—cap. liii. § 4 (Ed. Senckenberg). On the other hand, a constitution of Frederic Barbarossa, issued in 1168 and quoted above, forbids the duel in capital cases unless the adversaries are of equal birth.
Tallhöfer’s Kamp-recht lays down the rule unconditionally—“Item ist das ain man kempflich angesprochen wirt von ainem der nit als gut is als er, dem mag er mit recht ussgan ob er wil ... sprict aber der edler den mindern an zu kempfen so mag der der minder nich absyn.”—Dreyer, op. cit. p. 166.
[450] Jur. Prov. Alamann. cap. cclviii. § 20. (Ed. Schilter.)—We have already seen that the converse of this rule was introduced in England, as regards questions between Frenchmen and Englishmen, by William the Conqueror.
[451] Quia surien et greci in omnibus suis causis, præter quam in criminalibus excusantur a duello.—Assises de Jerusalem, Baisse Court, cap. 269.