be used, why did God make them? The truth is, they that preach against them cannot make use of them theirselves, and then again, they get Esteem by seeming to condemn them. But mark it while you live, if they do not please themselves as much as they can; and we live more by Example than Precept.*

:

Duel.

DUEL may still be granted in some Cases by the Law of England, and only there. That the Church allowed it Anciently, appears by this in their public Liturgies there were Prayers appointed for the Duellists to say; the Judge used to bid them go to such a Church and pray, &c. But whether is this Lawful? If you grant any War Lawful, I make no doubt but to convince it. War is Lawful, because God is the only Judge between two, that are Supreme.+ Now if a Difference happen between two Subjects, and it cannot be decided by Human Testimony, why may they not put it to God to Judge between them by the Permission of the Prince? Nay, what if we should bring it down for Argument's sake, to the Swordmen? One gives me the Lie, 'tis a great disgrace to take it; the Law has made no Provision to give Remedy for the Injury, if you can sup

We live more by example than precept, and show our lives more in what we do than what we say.

This is the reading of the MS. in the Harleian collection. The original Edition has, "two that is supreme." The meaning appears to be two that acknowledge no common jurisdiction.

pose any thing an Injury for which the Law gives no Remedy: why am not I in this Case Supreme, and may therefore right myself?*

2. A Duke ought to fight with a Gentleman. The Reason is this: the Gentleman will say to the Duke 'tis True, you hold a higher Place in the State than I: there's a great distance between you and me, but your Dignity does not Privilege you to do me an Injury; as soon as ever you do me an Injury, you make yourself my equal; and as you are my equal I challenge you; and in sense the Duke is bound to Answer him. This will give you some Light to understand the Quarrel betwixt a Prince and his Subjects. Though there be a vast Distance between him and them, and they are to obey him, according to their Contract, yet he hath no power to do them an Injury: then they think themselves as much bound to vindicate their Right, as they are to obey his Lawful Commands; nor is there any other measure of Justice left upon Earth but Arms.

* But Selden has himself remarked in his treatise of "the Duello or Single-Combat," chap. IV. That the divine law and Christianity teach otherwise. One of the most satisfactory evidences of advancing civilization in a right direction is the unfrequency of this hateful practice among us. Paley has truly said, "Murder is forbidden; and wherever human life is taken away, otherwise than by public authority, there is murder.”—Moral and Political Philosophy, vol. i. p. 270.

Epitaph.

N Epitaph must be made fit for the Person for whom it is made. For a Man to say all the

Excellent things that can be said upon one, and call that his Epitaph, is as if a Painter should make the handsomest Piece he can possibly make, and say 'twas my Picture. It holds in a Funeral Sermon.

it.

Equity.

QUITY in Law, is the same that the Spirit is in Religion, what every one pleases to make Sometimes they go according to Conscience, sometimes according to Law, sometimes according to the Rule of Court.

2. Equity is a Roguish thing: for Law we have a measure, know what to trust to; Equity is according to the Conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is Equity. "Tis all one as if they should make the Standard for the measure, we call a Foot, a Chancellor's Foot; what an uncertain Measure would this be? One Chancellor has a long Foot, another a short Foot, a Third an indifferent Foot: 'Tis the same thing in the Chancellor's Conscience.

3. That saying, " Do as you would be done to," is often misunderstood, for 'tis not thus meant, that I a private

E

Man should do to you a private Man, as I would have you to me, but do, as we have agreed to do one to another by public Agreement. If the Prisoner should ask the Judge, whether he would be content to be hanged, were he in his case, he would answer no. Then says the Prisoner, do as you would be done to. Neither of them must do as private Men, but the Judge must do by him as they have publicly agreed; that is, both Judge and Prisoner have consented to a Law, that if either of them steal, they shall be hanged.

Evil Speaking.

E that speaks ill of another, commonly before he is aware, makes himself such a one as he

speaks against; for if he had Civility or Breed

ing he would forbear such kind of Language.

2. A gallant Man is above ill words: an Example we have in the old Lord of Salisbury, who was a great wise Man. Stone had call'd some Lord about Court, Fool; the Lord complains, and has Stone whipt: Stone, cries, I might have called my Lord of Salisbury Fool often enough, before he would have had me whipt.*

*

Lear

* Whipping was the punishment generally inflicted. threatens his fool with the whip. "Every one knows, says Mr. Douce, the disgraceful conduct of Archbishop Laud to poor Archee. As Laud was proceeding to the council, the jester accosted him with 'Wha's foule now? doth not your Grace hear the news from Striveling about the Liturgy?' This was not to be pardoned either by the prelate or his master, and the records of

3. Speak not ill of a great Enemy, but rather give him good words, that he may use you the better, if you chance to fall into his Hands. The Spaniard did this when he was dying. His Confessor told him (to work him to Repentance) how the Devil tormented the wicked that went to Hell: the Spaniard replying, called the Devil my Lord. I hope my Lord the Devil is not so cruel, his Confessor reproved him. Excuse me said the Don, for calling him so, I know not into what Hands I may fall, and if I happen into his, I hope he will use me the better, for giving him good words.

the council, March 11, 1637-8, tell us that Archibald Armstrong, the king's fool, for certain scandalous words of a high nature spoken by him against the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his grace, shall have his coat pulled over his head, and be discharged the king's service, and banished the court." See Rushworth, part ii. vol. i. p.471. Bruntome," Dames Galantes" ad fin. relates a story of a fool belonging to Elizabeth of France, who got a whipping in the kitchen for a licentious speech to his mistress. The haughty Duke D'Espernon was however more discreet; his Gascon accent was a constant source of raillery on the part of Maret, the fool of Lewis XIII., whose talent lay in mimicry. Richelieu admonished the Duke to get rid of his provincial tones, at the same time counterfeiting his manner, and sarcastically entreated him not to take the advice in bad part. "Why should I,” replied the Duke," when I bear as much every day from the King's fool who mocks me in your presence?"-Vigneul de Marville, Mélanges, ii. 50.