Tournaments continued to enjoy a large amount of favour among the nobles and knights, and their retainers: but princes began to see that these great armed meetings of their powerful vassals, in the facilities they afforded for combinations against the royal power, and in the imposing exhibition of the baronial force and dignity necessarily involved in these pageants, were full of danger to the kingly order; and, in consequence, forbade their celebration except under express permission of the sovereign[424]. The plea was, the dangers incurred by the competitors at these mock battles, and the disorders to which they sometimes led. And indeed it was not difficult to justify the prohibition on these grounds. Among many instances that might be quoted of the tumultuous termination of a tournament, we may notice that of Rochester in 1251. "In this same year," says Paris[425], "on the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, a fierce Tournament was held at Rochester between the English and foreigners, in which the foreigners were so shamefully beaten that they disgracefully fled to the city for refuge; but, being met by knights coming in an opposite direction, they were again attacked, despoiled, and soundly beaten with sticks and staves: and thus they returned with much interest the blows and injuries they had received at the tournament of Brackley. The anger and hatred between the English and foreigners increased in consequence, and became daily more fearful." Another striking example of this century is the hastilude between King Edward I. and the Count of Châlons in 1274, which was of so serious a nature as to receive the name of "La petite Bataille de Châlons." The king, returning from the Holy Land, to take possession of his crown, was invited by the Count to participate in a tourney which he was preparing. The king's company is said to have been a thousand only, while those engaged on the Count's side are estimated at double the number. But this is the estimate of English chroniclers. The tourneyers met near Châlons, some on horseback, others on foot, armed with swords. The Count, who was a very powerful man, singled out the king for an antagonist; cast aside his sword, threw his arms round the neck of the monarch, and used all his force to drag him from his horse. But the king, taking advantage of the tight hold by which the Count had fixed himself to his person, and relying on his own strength, suddenly clapped spurs to his horse, carried away the Count out of his saddle, and then by a violent shake tumbled him to the ground. Being remounted, the Count renewed the attack, but with no greater success than before. His knights, meanwhile, exasperated at the discomfiture of their leader, began to assail the English with all the rancour of real warfare. The English returned wound for wound: the "Joust of Peace" became a "Joûte à outrance:" Edward's archers plied their terrible arrows, routed the troops opposed to them, rushed upon the knights, slew their steeds or cut their saddle-girths, so as to bring to the ground many a sturdy baron and rich prisoner[426].
Of the mandates issued for the suppression of tournaments, many examples have come down to us. The Fœdera contains a considerable number. Some were sent forth by the temporal prince, others were launched by the spiritual arm; for it was no difficult matter in these days to obtain the pope's aid in any scheme of this nature, where a benevolent intention could be assigned, and a liberal douceur had been supplied. In 1220, Pandulf the legate forbids a tournament in England, under pain of the forfeiture of goods and of excommunication[427]. In 1234, the king of England charges his subjects that they offend not by tourneying or behourding (buhurdare vel torneare[428]). In 1255 the royal inhibition is again sent forth, and the reason given for its publication is the peril of Prince Edward in Gascony: "eo quod Edwardus, filius Regis in gravi periculo existit in Wasconia[429]." 1265 is the date of another[430]. In 1299, the king again issues his mandate: this time with penalties of peculiar severity. The knight is forbidden "sub forisfacturâ vite et membrorum, et omnium que tenet in dicto regno, torneare, bordeare, seu justas facere, aventuras querere, aut aliàs ad arma ire, quoquo modo, sine nostrâ licenciâ speciali." Should any dare to disobey, then they are forthwith to be arrested and placed in safe custody, "corpora ipsorum, unà cum equis et hernesio suis[431]."
Whilst, however, the monarch of timid character and jealous of his baronage, looked with disrelish on the Tournament, the prince of an enterprising disposition and skilled in military exercises, naturally regarded with more complacency a pastime in which his own achievements were placed in the most brilliant light, and the respect and attachment of his nobles secured, by the exhibition of those qualities on which they themselves founded their chief claim to power and distinction. Thus, in the thirteenth century, when the king (Henry III.) had created eighty new knights, the gallant Prince Edward accompanied them to a tournament which had been proclaimed on the continent, "that each might try his strength, as was the custom with newly-made knights[432]." In 1253, the Earl of Gloucester with a companion also went abroad, to take part in a marriage festivity and in a tournament which followed it: an adventure in which they were so roughly handled by the antagonist knights as to require daily fomentations and bathing to restore them to health[433].
Regarding the equipment of the knights and their assistants at the Tournament, there are two documents of this century which are of the highest interest and afford the most curious information. These are the "Statutum Armorum ad Torniamenta," compiled previous to 1295; and the roll detailing the "Empciones facte contra Torniamentum de Parco de Windsore," in the 6th year of Edward I.; from the latter of which we have already extracted some passages illustrative of various portions of the knightly armament.
By the tournament statute we learn that there existed at this time a sort of Court of Honour, to judge all disputes and delinquencies that might arise during the celebration of the games; and the members of it were the king's eldest son, Prince Edward; Edmund, earl of Lancaster; William de Valence, earl of Pembroke; Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester; and the earl of Lincoln. As De Valence, the last of his name, died in 1296, and the earl of Gloucester in 1295, the date of this document cannot of course be later than the year last quoted[434]. It is not unworthy of note that the effigies of two of these Judges of the Tournament, fully equipped in the trappings of armed knighthood, have been preserved to our days: the monuments of Edmund Crouchback and of William de Valence in Westminster Abbey are among the most curious memorials that can be consulted by the student of ancient military costume. There are several copies of the statute extant. The following, from a manuscript in the Bodleian Library, has been selected by the Record Commission as the most trustworthy[435]:—
"A la requeste de Contes e de Barons e de la Chivalrie de Englet're, ordine est e p̰ nostro Seignr le Rey comaunde: qe nul ne seit si hardi desoremes, Conte ne Baron ne autre Chivaler, qe al Torney voysent de aver plus qe treys Esquiers armez, pur li servir al Turney: e qe chescun Esquier porte chapel des armes son Seignur qe il servira a la jornee pur enseygne.
"E qe nul Ch͂r ne Esquier qe sert al Turney ne porte espeie a point, ne cotel a point, ne bastoun, ne mace, fors espee large pur turneer. E qe tuz les baneors, qe baners portent, seent armez de mustilers[436], e de quisers[437], e de espaulers, e de bacyn[438] sanz plus.
"E sil avent qe nul Conte ou Baron ou autre Chivaler voyse encontre le estatut p̰ le assent e le comaundem̄t nostre Seignr Sire Edward, fiz le Rey, e Sire Eumond frere le Rey, e Sire Willeme de Valence, e Sire Gilb͂t de Clare, e le Cunte de Nichole[439], qe celi Chivaler, qe issint s'ra trove en forfetaunt en nul poynt encontre le estatut, seyt encurru cele peyne: qe il perde chival e armes, e demeorge en prison a la volunte de avaūtdiz Sire Edward, Sire Eumond, e le autres. E qe le Esquier qe serra trove fesaunt encontre le estatut, qe issi est devise, en acun poynt, perde chival e herneys[440] e seyt iij. aunz en la prison. E qe nul sake[441] Chivaler a terre, fors ceus qe serrunt armez pur lur Seignr servir, qe le Chivaler pusse recovrir son chival, e cely seit en la forfeture des Esquiers avaunt diz.
"E qe nul fiz de graunt Seignur, ceo est asaver, de Conte ou de Baron, ne seit arme fors de mustilers, e de quisers, e de espaulers, e de bacynet, saunz plus, e qe nul aporte cutel a poynte, ne espeye, ne mace, fors espee large. E si nul seit trove qe, en ascun de ceos poynz, alast encontre le estatut, qe il perde son chival le quel il serra munte a la jornee, e seit en la prison un an.
"E qe ceus qe vendrunt pur veer le turnem̄t ne seent armez de nule manere de armure, ne qe il ne portent ne espee, ne cutel, ne bastun, ne mace, ne perre, sur la forfeture des Esquiers avauntdiz. E qe nul garson, ne hom̄e a pee ne porte espee, ne cutel, ne baston, ne perrer: e si il seent trovez enforfetaunt, qe il seyent emprisonez vij. aunz.
"E si acun graunt Seignr ou autre teygne mangerie, qe nul esquier ne ameyne eynz fors ceus qe trencherunt devaunt lur Seignurs.
"E qe nul Roy de Haraunz ne Menestrals[442] portent privez armez, ne autres forz lur espees saunz poynte. E qe le Reys des Harraunz eyent lur huces des armes saunz plus." &c.
This document affords us some curious glimpses at the customs of the time; not less by what it forbids than by what it ordains. A tournament in which the combatants are liable to be pelted by the stones and slings of the varlets and other lookers-on, does not give us a very exalted idea of these festivals; and, for a holiday game, the rules seem oddly severe which decree that the poor squire who infringes them shall lose horse and armour, and "demeorge iij. aunz en la prison."
The Roll of Purchases made for the Tournament of Windsor Park, "per manum Adinetti cissoris," is preserved in the Tower of London, and bears date 9th of July in the sixth year of Edward I. (1278). The jousts were of the kind called "Jousts of Peace," and the knights for whom armour is provided are thirty-eight in number. Of these, twelve are styled "digniores," and wore gilded helms, while the remainder had head-pieces that were silvered only. A "memorandum" informs us that each suit consisted of one coat-of-fence, one surcoat, one pair of ailettes, two crests (of which, one for the horse), one shield, one helm of leather, and one sword made of whalebone. "Md qđ in quo ̱p h͂ne͂s fu'unt j. Tunic' ar͂m: j. coo̱ptor͂: j. par͂ alett͂. Itm̄ ij. Crest͂ & j. Blazon̄ & una galea cor͂ & j. ensis de Balon̄." Each coat-of-fence was composed of a Cuirass and Arm-defences. The cuirasses (quirettæ) being supplied by "Milo the Currier," were probably of leather, as the helms were: "De Milon̄ le Cuireur͂. xxxviij. quiret͂: p'̄c pēc iij. s." For each of them were furnished two ells of the cloth called "Carda;" while eight pieces of "Diaper" contributed to the formation of the whole thirty-eight:—
"Pro qualibet quirett͂ ij. uln̄ card.
Pro eisd' h͂ne͂s armand' viij. diasper͂."
The carda is charged at fourpence an ell; the diaper at eight shillings the piece. "Ten buckrams" are supplied to form the arm-defences: "Item ̱p xxxviij. par͂ brach͂ x. bukerann̄." And the whole of these are painted: "Item ̱p f̄cur͂ & pictur͂ xxxviij. par͂ Brach' de Bokeran p'̄c par͂ iiij. d." These body-armours must have differed very widely in their structure or embellishment; for while the Harness-of-Arms of Walter de Sancto Martino only cost seven shillings, that of the Earl of Lincoln amounted to thirty-three shillings and fourpence. Little bells were added to the equipment either of the knights or their horses; perhaps both: and they were purchased of Richard Paternoster: "De Ricō pat'nr͂ dccc. Nolaȝ sive Tintunabul' p'̄c cent͂. iij. s." This decoration of bells obtained great favour in the next two centuries.