189 Eglesfield v Cole

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '189 Eglesfield v Cole', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/189-eglesfield-cole [accessed 21 November 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '189 Eglesfield v Cole', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed November 21, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/189-eglesfield-cole.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "189 Eglesfield v Cole". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 21 November 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/189-eglesfield-cole.

In this section

189 EGLESFIELD V COLE

Ralph Eglesfield of St Margaret Pattens, London, gent v William Cole of the same, tailor

March - April 1638

Abstract

Eglesfield complained that in February 1638, in the parish of St Margaret Pattens, London, Cole called him 'base fellowe, base rascall', gave him the lie six or seven times in the presence of 'many persons of good repute', and challenged Eglesfield by saying that 'I durst not meet him, and that he was a better man then I'. Process was granted on 1 March and a libel entered 28 April; but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

7/107, Petition to Arundel

'Humbly sheweth, that the petitioner is a gent of an ancient and generous family. That one William Cole of London Tayler in the moneth of February last past much abused your petitioner and before many persons of good repute called the petitioner base fellowe base rascall and gave the petitioner the lye six or seaven tymes thereby, as much as in him lay provokeinge him to duell'.

Petitioned that process be granted.

Dr Duck ordered Mr Dethick to grant process, 1 March 1638.

15/2a, Citation

Cole was to appear at the suit of Eglesfield for scandalous words provocative of a duel.

Dated: 1 March 1638

By special direction Gilbert Dethick, registrar.

20/3d, Libel

1. Eglesfield's family had been gentry for up to 300 years. Between January and March 1638 in the above parish, Cole said before several gentlemen 'that I was a base fellow, a base rascall, and gave me the lye divers times, and challenged me to fight with him and said I durst not meet him, and that he was a better man then I'. These words were provocative of a duel.

Dated 28 April 1638.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Notes

William Cole may have been a younger son of William Cole of London (d.1600) and Anne (d.1598), eldest daughter of Michael Colles, gent. Ralph Eglesfield did not appear in the London Visitations.

J. Jackson Howard and J. L. Chester (eds.), The Visitation of London, 1633, 1634 and, 1635, vol. I (Publications of the Harleian Society, 15, 1880), p. 180; J. Jackson Howard (ed.), The Visitation of London, 1633, 1634 and, 1635, vol. II (Publications of the Harleian Society, 17, 1883), p. 63.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition to Arundel: 7/107 (1 Mar 1638)
    • Citation: 15/2a (1 Mar 1638)
    • Libel: 20/3d (28 Apr 1638)

People mentioned in the case

  • Cole, Anne
  • Cole, William, tailor
  • Colles, Michael, gent
  • Dethick, Gilbert, registrar
  • Duck, Arthur, lawyer
  • Eglesfield, Ralph, gent (also Egglesfield)
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey

Places mentioned in the case

  • London
    • St Margaret Pattens

Topics of the case

  • challenge to a duel
  • comparison
  • denial of gentility
  • giving the lie
  • insult before gentlemen
  • provocative of a duel
PreviousTable of contentsNext