In the beginning of this work an account has
been given of various traditional trials by combat
and judicial ordeals, marked with a similar character
of brutality and superstition to that which
distinguished similar meetings in France and
other countries; and it has also been observed,
that it appears evident that personal combats
were brought into vogue in England by the followers
of William the Conqueror. But the barbarous
practice of trial by battle was modified in
our island by various circumstances, and was chiefly
applied to three special cases—The decision of
causes in a military Court of Chivalry; Appeals
of felony; and civil cases upon issue joined in a
writ of right. This last ordeal, until the reign of
Henry II, was the only mode of decision.
2According to the maxim of the law of England,
there is no rule more distinctly stated than that
slaying, in a deliberate duel, is wilful murder; yet
at all times considerable difficulties have arisen in
this admission and construction.
The word murdrum appears to have been first
used in the time of Canute; and was, according to
Relyng, a term or description of a homicide committed
in the worst manner. The presumption
was, that the victim was a Dane, and that he was
killed secretly and treacherously. If the murderer
could not be found, the ville or hundred was
amerced, and this fine was called murdrum. After
the expulsion of the Danes, this law became a
dead letter, until revived after the Conquest by
William, when it was applied to the assassination
of a Norman, or any Frenchman. In the reign of
Henry III, the term murder was applied to the
private slaying of any man, there being none present
but those aiding in the perpetration of the
deed.
In the reign of Richard II, murder was killing
by await, assault, or malice prepense; but the
distinction between murder and manslaughter was
not clearly defined until the reign of Henry VIII,
when benefit of clergy was taken away from the
murderer. This distinction between murder and
justifiable homicide se defendendo, or homicide per
infortunium, was an important reform in our law,
which at that period did not take into consideration
3the frail condition of mankind, and the influence
of our passions, the more to be dreaded
from the state of ignorance and superstition in
which the nation was plunged. By our old law,
if a man was killed in a quarrel, or in a sudden
affray, it was equally felonious.
Many jurisconsults endeavoured to bring slaying
in a duel within the class of murder, contrary to the
general rule, that death ensuing in a mutual combat
is only manslaughter; because, they said, when
parties went out deliberately to fight with deadly
weapons, there was presumptive malice aforethought,
omitting all notice of treachery; which,
in an ordinary duel, decided upon by seconds,
appears to be the only ground for presuming that
felonious malice was contemplated. It is evident
that this distinction is one of the utmost importance.
The primary object of a murderer is to destroy his
victim; with this intention he attacks him, and
although he may defend himself, yet the assault
is treacherous as with malice aforethought;
whereas the primary object of the duellist is to
fight—the result of the meeting may be fatal or
not,—his second consideration is to preserve his
own life, and the third to put his adversary hors
de combat.
Hawkins maintained that when divers rioters
having forcibly taken possession of a house, afterwards
killed the person whom they had ejected,
as he was endeavouring in the night forcibly to
4regain possession and to fire the house, they were
to be adjudged guilty of manslaughter only, notwithstanding
they did the fact in maintenance of deliberate
injury; perhaps, for this reason, because the
person slain was so much in fault himself.
The same legal authority further says, “Some
have gone so far as to hold that the seconds of the
person killed are also equally guilty, in respect to
that countenance which they gave to their principals
in the execution of their purpose, by accompanying
them therein, and being ready to bear a
part with them:” but, perhaps, the contrary opinion
is the more plausible; for it seems too severe
a construction to make a man, by such reasoning,
the murderer of his friend, to whom he was so far
from intending a mischief, that he was ready to
hazard his own life in his quarrel.
The highest authorities have strained the law to
crush duelling without the aid of the legislature,
and Hawkins says, that “it seems agreed, that
whenever two persons in cold blood meet and
fight on a precedent quarrel, and one of them is
killed, the other is guilty of murder, and cannot
help himself by alleging that he was first struck
by the deceased.” Sir Edward Coke, in the case
of Thomas, makes the following observation:—“As
for direction to the jury, in cases of murder
grounded upon former malice, it is very clear, and
so it is adjudged in Plowden’s Commentaries, that
if two men fall out, malice before is not anything
5material for the jury to inquire, but the subsequent
matter, who began the affray; and if he be
killed who offered the first wrong, yet it may be
murder in the other who killed him, and the subsequent
beginning not material.”
It would be foreign to the nature of this work
to enter more fully into the legal opinions entertained
on this matter by the greatest authorities,
but many instances are upon record, in which,
upon the judge’s charge, the survivor in a duel
has been found guilty of murder. Such was
the case of Morgan for the murder of Egerton;
but he subsequently was pardoned, and set at
large.
In the case of Richard Taverner a verdict of
guilty of wilful murder was also found. The
antagonist whom he had killed, was a man of the
name of Bird, whose second, Hughes, was also
killed. But many cases are on record, in which,
notwithstanding the judge’s charge to the jury, a
verdict of manslaughter was found.
During the early periods of our history, many
challenges were sent, and combats have been prevented
by regal and judicial interference. In the
reign of Edward III, 1361, Henry, Duke of Lancaster,
was challenged by the Duke of Brunswick
to a combat before John, king of France, on account
of some insulting language which the Duke
of Lancaster had made use of. The challenge was
accepted, and both parties appeared at the appointed
6time and place. But after they had entered the
lists, the King of France interposed, and reconciled
the parties. The field was in a plain near
the Abbey of St. Germain des Prés, and the
Bishop of Paris, Jean de Meulan, not to miss the
sight, had slept at the Abbey the preceding
night.
In the reign of Richard II, Henry, Duke of
Hereford, sent, by Thomas Mowbray, Duke of
Norfolk, good advice and counsel to the King,
which was purposely misrepresented, and mixed
with offensive words, of which the Duke of Hereford
being informed, he went to the King and explained
the message he had sent; but denied the
false one delivered in his name, and begged that
he might combat the Duke of Norfolk, and maintain
the truth. Leave was granted, and time and
place appointed; but when they appeared and
were ready to draw their swords, the King, who
had submitted the matter to Parliament, commanded
them to forbear, banished the Duke of
Norfolk for ever, and his cousin of Hereford for
a term of years: the meeting took place in 1398,
near Coventry.
In the reign of Edward III, a most singular
meeting took place between William Montacute,
Earl of Salisbury, and Robert, Bishop of Salisbury,
for the right of the castle of Old Sarum.
The Bishop had laid claim to it, but the Earl declared
himself ready to defend his possession by
7duel, to which the prelate consented. The day
and place were appointed, when the parties were
to fight by proxies. The Bishop brought to the
lists his champion, cloaked with a white garment
down to the knee, above which was a cassock embroidered
with the episcopal arms, and with him a
knight carrying a shield and staff. The Earl also
led his champion by the hand into the lists, cloaked
in the same manner, with two knights attending
him; but while they were viewing and comparing
arms, and searching whether any of them had
amulets, charms, or enchantments about them, an
order came from the King to adjourn the combat,
and the matter was arranged.
From the commencement of the war of the
roses, the trial by battle fell into desuetude. One
of the latest instances of this ordeal was in the
reign of Elizabeth, in 1571, when a suit having
been instituted for recovery of certain manorial
rights in the isle of Hartie, Kent, the defendant
offered to maintain his claim by duel. The plaintiff
accepted the challenge, champions were appointed,
and the requisite arrangements made.
On the day appointed, the judges, attended by
the counsel of the parties, repaired to the lists in
Tothill-fields, as umpires of the combat; but as
the plaintiff did not make his appearance to acknowledge
his champion, he was nonsuited, or
rather the suit was compounded—the defendant
remaining in possession by paying a stipulated
8sum to the petitioners; but yet to save the credit
of the defendant, who had demanded the combat,
all the ceremonials of time, place, and arms, were
adjusted.[1] Another instance occurred in the
Court of Chivalry, in 1631: a trial by battle
was also demanded in the palatine of Durham, in
1638. Of late years, it was only in 1818, that
a similar demand was made in the case of
Thornton and Ashford, when this barbarous and
superstitious practice was finally abolished.
In 1542, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, who
had distinguished himself in the jousts and tournaments
on the marriage of Henry VIII. to Anne
of Cleves, was imprisoned in the Fleet, on the
ground of a quarrel with a private gentleman,
and remained closely confined for several weeks,
until he was liberated on giving security to keep
the peace in the then enormous sum of ten thousand
marks. He was not long out of durance,
being recommitted for having eaten meat in Lent,
and broken the windows of peaceable citizens by
shots from his crossbow. The defence of this
unfortunate nobleman for the latter offence was
rather curious, as he maintained that he had
broken their windows in the hope of correcting
the licentious and corrupt manner of these citizens,
by impressing them with an idea that such
attacks, by means unheard and unseen, were supernatural
warnings from Providence of impending
9vengeance, a plea which is now extant on the
minutes of the Privy Council!
During the reign of James I. duels appear to
have been more frequent, and were resorted to,
not only by the upper classes, but amongst the
lower orders. This appears from a speech of
Bacon, when attorney-general, in the case of a
challenge brought before the Star Chamber Court.
Bacon therein attributes the frequency of the
practice to the rooted prejudice of the times, and
hopes that the great would think it time to leave
off the custom, when they find it adopted by barber-surgeons
and butchers; and in one of his
letters on the subject to Lord Villiers, he expresses
his determination not to make any distinction
between a coronet and a hatband in his
efforts to repress the practice. “I will prosecute,”
he says, “if any man appoint the field, though no
fight takes place; if any man send a challenge in
writing or verbally; if any man accept a challenge,
or consent to be a second; if any man
depart the realm in order to fight; if any man
revive a quarrel after the late proclamation.” It
does not appear, however, that this great man’s
exertions were productive of much beneficial result,
as the monarch, in one of his proclamations,
called these combats “the bewitching duel.”[2]
10The duel fought, and the challenge sent, by Lord
Herbert of Cherbury, and which we have elsewhere
recorded, are striking illustrations of the
chivalric notion of the times; and the Quixotic
language in which that challenge was couched,
was somewhat similar to that of the one sent by
Sir Henry Urton, our ambassador to the court
of France, to the Duc de Guise.
“Forasmuch as lately in the lodgings of the
Lord Dumogre, and in public elsewhere, impudently,
indiscreetly, and overboldly, you spoke
11badly of my sovereign, whose sacred person here
in this country I represent, to maintain, both by
word and weapon, her honour (which was never
called into question among persons of honesty
and virtue). I say you have wickedly and maliciously
lied, in speaking so basely of my sovereign,
and you shall do nothing else but lie whenever
you dare to tax her honour. Moreover, that
her sacred person (being one of the most complete
and virtuous princesses that lives in this world)
ought not to be evil spoken of by the vile tongue
of such a perfidious traitor to her land and country
as you are, and therefore I do defy you, and
challenge your person to mine, with such manner
of arms as you shall like or choose, be it either on
horseback or on foot; nor would I have you to
think any inequality of person between us, I
being issued of as great a race and noble a house
as yourself, in assigning me an indifferent place,
I will there maintain my words, and the lie which
I gave and give you. If you consent not to meet
me hereupon, I will hold you, and cause you to
be generally held, for the arrantest coward, and
the most slanderous slave, in all France. I expect
your immediate answer.”
It appears that De Guise did not think it expedient
to accept the challenge.
The peace of the realm appears to have been
frequently disturbed during the reign of James
by duels, in which many valuable lives were lost.
12The death of Sir Hatton Cheek was one of these
fatal occurrences. This gallant officer was the
second in command of the English army at the
siege of Juliers, in 1609, where a few hasty words
addressed by him to Sir Thomas Dutton, induced
that officer, who was of an inferior rank, to resign
his commission and repair to England, where he
endeavoured to injure the character of Cheek by
various unfavourable reports, and the latter demanded
a meeting at Calais. On their meeting
on the sands, Dutton began to reproach Cheek
with the injuries he had received at his hands,
but Cheek insisted upon the immediate settlement
of the business. The seconds stripped both
parties to their shirts, and they attacked each
other, each of them armed with a rapier and a
dagger. In the first onset Cheek ran Dutton
through the throat with his dagger, close to the
windpipe; when Dutton made a pass at him and
ran him through the body, while he stabbed him
in the back with his poniard. Although Cheek’s
wounds were mortal, he rushed upon his antagonist,
who, observing that he gradually drooped
from loss of blood, merely kept on the defensive
till he fell dead at his feet.
James had to punish severely the Lord Sanquair,
for having killed a fencing-master in a duel: the
riddance to society of a master of the art of murder
would have palliated the offence, but the unruly
conduct of the Scotch followers of Sanquair
13was so obnoxious and ungovernable, that it was
deemed necessary to inflict a punishment on their
chief. This case was a curious one: his lordship,
who prided himself on his skill in swordsmanship,
had an assault with a fencing-master of the name
of Turner, who put out one of his eyes with his
foil. Turner made every possible excuse for the
unfortunate occurrence, and Sanquair affected to
forgive him. Some years after he visited the
court of Henri IV. of France, when this prince
asked him how he had lost his eye. Sanquair was
embarrassed by the question, and with some hesitation
replied, “By a sword wound.” The king
immediately replied, “And does the man live?”
An expression which sunk deep into his mind,
and from that moment he formed the resolution
to rid himself of the obnoxious cause of his misfortune
in any manner. On his return to England,
disdaining to sacrifice his victim with his
own noble hands, he hired two ruffians who assassinated
Turner in his lodgings in Whitefriars.
The murderers were taken, but Sanquair had fled,
and 1000l. reward was offered by proclamation
for his apprehension. Trusting to his sovereign’s
partiality for the Scotch, and having for a mediator
at court the Archbishop of Canterbury, he surrendered
himself; but all intercession was vain.
Bacon was ordered to prosecute, and Sanquair
and his accomplices were condemned, and he was
14hanged on the 29th of June, 1612, in front of the
entrance of Westminster-hall.
In a MS. paper found in the library of Mr.
Goodwin, author of the Life of Henry VIII, the
following account, signed by R. Deerhurst, of a
desperate duel fought by two noblemen of that
period, was found:—
“HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF B—— TO THE LORD B——.
“The affront which you gave me at the imperial
minister’s ball last night, would argue me a
person very unworthy of the character I bear, to
let it pass unregarded. To prove me that adventurous
knight, which your evasive expression would
have given the noble Lady to understand, may
perhaps be the most acceptable means to reconcile
your spleen; convince me then that you are more
of a gentleman than I have reason to believe, by
meeting me near the first tree behind the lodge in
Hyde-park, precisely at half an hour after five to-morrow
morning; and that there may be no pretension
to delay, I have sent by the bearer of this
two swords, of which I give you the privilege to
make a choice. I shall approve of whatever terms
of fighting you shall please to purpose. In the
interim I wish your Lordship a good rest.
“Nine o’Clock.
B.”
“LORD B——’S ANSWER TO THE ABOVE.
“I received your Grace’s message, and accept
the contents. It would give me a sensible concern
15to be obliged to give up the pretension which
your Grace is doubtful of. It was from an oversight,
I presume, that your Grace gave me the
privilege to choose my sword, except your Grace
has been so little used to this sort of ceremony as
to have forgot that it is the challenger’s choice.
This, however, is but a trifle (if anything). The
terms I leave to our seconds, and will not fail to
appear at the time appointed, and in the interim
I wish your Grace a very good night.
“Eleven o’Clock.
B.”
After my Lord B—— had answered his Grace’s
letter, he visited several of his friends, and was
observed to be remarkably jocose at Lady Nottingham’s,
which occasioned a young lady, after
his departure, to remark that she fancied there
was something very agreeable to his lordship renewed
again, relating to the Countess of E——,
well knowing his extraordinary passion for that
lady. He told the messenger who carried his
letter to bring his Grace’s answer to General De
Lee, his second, with whom he remained that
night in St. James’s-street.
About four in the morning his Lordship waked
and got softly up, without (as he thought) being
observed; and dressing himself, buckled on his
sword, and fixing two agate flints in his pistols,
charged them; but recollecting that the Duke’s
second would probably desire to see them loaded,
16he drew the charge. By this time the General
was awake; and observing his Lordship taking a
book out of his pocket, he thought it improper to
interrupt him. His Lordship then kneeled down
at a small jasper table, and seemed to pray with
great devotion for a quarter of an hour, often repeating,
just loud enough to be heard, the errors of
his youthful days, and fervently supplicating the
Almighty not to impute them to him; after which
he awoke the General, adding, that as the morning
was cold and rainy he did not wish to delay
his Grace. By the time they were accoutred,
De Lee requested to view his Lordship’s sword,
when he examined the point and handle most
cautiously, and then returned it, adding, that he
wished it was going to be employed in a cause
more serviceable to his country. His Lordship
replied, that it could be matter of little consequence,
let the event be what it would. On their
departure the General desired to know if there
was any thing he was desirous to communicate,
upon which he placed in his hand a letter addressed
to the Right Hon. the Countess of E——,
desiring that he would deliver it to her when
alone, and not upon any consideration to put it
into another hand.
They arrived somewhat before the appointed
time, and took several turns from the tree to the
lodge, his Lordship several times expressing surprise
at his Grace’s delay, though it was not more
17than two minutes beyond it. His Grace then
arrived, attended with one second only. He bade
his Lordship a good morning, and hoped he had
not waited for him long; then pulling out his
watch, said that he had hit it to a point, adding,
that he would rather die than break his
promise upon such an occasion. His Lordship
returned the expression, and said, that though
they had waited a little, there was sufficient time
left to despatch the business they were upon. To
which his Grace replied, the sooner it is despatched,
the more leisure there will be behind. In the
interim, the seconds were pairing the swords, and
each one loading his adversary’s pistols. They
then agreed to the following terms, viz.:—
1. That the distance of firing should not be less
at each time than seven yards and a half.
2. That if either should be dangerously wounded
on the first discharge, the duel should cease, if
the wounded person would own that his life was
in the hands of his antagonist.
3. That between the firing and the drawing
swords, there should be no limited time, but each
should endeavour to make the first thrust.
4. That if either should yield, as in the second
article, during the engagement with swords,
whether by a wound, false step, or any other
circumstance, then the engagement should cease.
To which four articles both parties assented.
His Grace stripped off his coat, which was scarlet,
18trimmed with broad gold lace, when his Lordship’s
second stepped in to unbutton his Grace’s
waistcoat, to see justice done to the cause he had
espoused; on which, with some indignation, his
Grace replied, “Do you take me to be a person
of so little honour!” The same ceremony was performed
on his Lordship, who had already pulled
off his coat, which was crimson, with broad silver
lace, and both the combatants being ready, Lord
B—— added, “Now, if it please your Grace,
come on.” His Grace fired and missed, but my Lord
B——, perhaps from more experience, and knowing
that battles were seldom won by hasty measures,
deliberately levelled at him, and wounded
his Grace near the thumb. They both discharged
again, when his Lordship received a slight wound
in his turn. On which they instantly drew their
swords, and impetuously charged each other, each
of them seeming rather to meditate the death of
his adversary, than to regard his own safety. In
the first or second thrust Lord B—— entangled the
toe of his pump in a tuft of grass, and in evading
a lounge from his antagonist, fell on his right side,
but supporting himself on his sword hand, by inconceivable
dexterity, he sprang backwards, and
evaded the thrust apparently aimed at his heart.
A little pause intervening here, his Grace’s second
proposed to his Lordship a reconciliation; but
the ardent thirst after each other’s blood so overpowered
the strongest arguments and reason, that
19they insisted to execute each other forthwith,
whatever might be the consequence. Nay, the
anger of his Grace was raised to such a pitch of
revenge, that he, in that irritated moment, swore
if, for the future, either of the seconds interposed,
he would make his way through his body.
Then, after all remonstrance had proved ineffectual,
they retired to their limited distances,
and perhaps one of the most extraordinary duels
ensued that the records of history can produce,
fairly disputed hand to hand. The parrying after
this interval, brought on a close lock, which,
Monsieur Des Barreaux says, nothing but the key
of the body can open. In this position they stood,
I dare say, a minute, striving to disengage each
other by repeated wrenches, in one of which his
Grace’s sword got caught in the guard of his
Lordship, which circumstance his Lordship overlooked,
so that this advantage was recovered by his
Grace before the consequence which it might
have brought on was executed. At last, in a very
strong wrench on both sides, their swords sprang
from their hands. I dare say his Lordship’s flew
six or seven yards upright. This accident, however,
did not retard the affair a moment, but both
seizing their weapons at the same time, the duel
was renewed with as much malevolence as ever.
By this time his Lordship had received a thrust
through the inner side of his sword arm, passing
forward to the exterior part of the elbow; his, at
20the same time, passing a little over that of his
antagonist; but, cleverly springing back, I think
partly before his Grace had recovered his push, he
ran him through the body a little above the right
pap. His Lordship’s sword being thus engaged,
nothing was left for his defence but a naked left
arm; and his Grace being in this dangerous situation,
yet had fair play at almost any part of his
Lordship’s body, who bravely put by several
thrusts exactly levelled at his throat, till at last,
having two fingers cut off in defending the
pushes, and the rest mangled to a terrible degree,
his Grace lodged his sword one rib below the
heart, and in this affecting position they both
stood without either being able to make another
push. Each of them by this time was in a manner
covered with blood and gore, when both the
seconds stepped in and begged they would consider
their situation, and the good of their future
state; yet neither would consent to part, till, by
the great loss of blood which his Lordship had
sustained, he fell down senseless, but in such a
position that he drew his sword out of his Grace’s
body; recovering himself a little before he was
quite down, he faltered forward, and falling
with his thigh across his sword, snapped it in the
middle. His Grace observing that he was no
longer capable of defence, or sensible of danger,
immediately broke his own sword, and fell on his
body with the deepest sigh of concern, and both
21expired before any assistance could be got, though
Dr. Fountaine had orders not to be out of the
way that morning. Thus fell two gallant men,
whose personal bravery history can scarcely equal,
and whose honour nothing but such a cause could
stain.
During the civil wars that brought Charles’s
head to the block, duelling became a very rare
occurrence, and this circumstance is attributed to
the following causes by an ingenious writer on
the subject:[3]—“These civil wars were not of a
nature calculated, like those of France, to increase
the rage of the duel, but rather to suspend the
frequency of its practice. As it was not a struggle
(latterly, in particular) between two powerful
factions of the nobility and gentry one against the
other, but of the commonalty against whatever
was called royal, noble, or honourable in rank and
fortune; the consequence was, that the gentry,
and those who had been accustomed to look to
their own swords for revenge in personal affronts,
would have disdained to have settled points of
honour by private duel, with antagonists of such
ignoble birth. The general course of their
thoughts being also bent on the repulsion of the
common enemy of the order of gentry, they became
more closely united within themselves, and
were less in the habit of paying a scrupulous attention
22to all the supercilious dictates of a captious
honour.”
During the Protectorate duels were unfrequent
from causes somewhat similar amongst the upper
classes, while the lower orders were inspired with
a religious zeal and a fanatic enthusiasm, which
would have induced them to consider assassination
scarcely a greater sin than a duel. Yet we find
that Cromwell, in 1654, passed an ordinance for
punishing and preventing duelling. In this enactment
it was provided, that all persons sending,
carrying, or accepting a challenge, were to be
imprisoned for six months; and persons who were
challenged, and who did not declare it within
twenty-four hours, were to be considered as acceptors.
When death ensued in a duel, it was to
be considered murder; and persons using provoking
words or gestures, to be indicted, and, if convicted,
to be fined, bound to good behaviour, and
to make reparation to the party injured, according
to the quality or the nature of the offence.
There was, however, a preparation for a purgation
by single combat, in a doubtful case, in the
reign of Charles I, A.D. 1631. “The Lord Rea,
a Scotch Baron, impeached Ramsay and Meldrum
for moving him to join a conspiracy. They denied
it positively, and no witness could be produced.
Ramsay, a soldier, offered to clear himself
by combat that he was innocent, and the appellant,
Rea, accepted the challenge. The King
23was desirous it should be put upon the duel, and
the judges were consulted. According to their
advice there was a Court of the Constable and
Marshal appointed, and the Earl of Lindsey
special constable for the purpose; and the proceedings
between Rea and Ramsay in that Court
were very solemn, multitudes of people attending
the novelty. The business, however, was
afterwards made up by the King, through the
Marquis Hambleton, whose servant Ramsay was,
and the Lord Rea returned to his command under
the King of Sweden in Germany.”[4]
It was under the reign of James that the celebrated
duel between the Earl of Dorset and Lord
Bruce took place at Antwerp. Jealousy appears
to have been the cause of the difference that led
to their fatal meeting. The offence had been of
long standing, but it was renewed at Canterbury,
when Lord Bruce gave the Earl “two or three
good buffets in the face,” Sackville being without
a weapon, “having given his rapier instantly before
to the Palsgrave.” It appears, however, that
on this occasion “they were parted, and made
friends by the noblemen that were present,” and
Lord Bruce went to France “to learn to fence.”
A short time after the parties met by appointment,
and the Earl gives the following account of
the transaction:—
“As I am not ignorant, so I ought to be
24sensible of the false aspersions some authorless
tongues have laid upon me in the reports of the
unfortunate passage lately happened between the
Lord Bruce and myself; which, as they are spread
here, so I may justly fear they reign also where
you are. There are but two ways to resolve doubts
of this nature—by oath, and by sword. The
first is due to magistrates, and communicable to
friends; the other, to such as maliciously slander,
and impudently defend their assertions. Your
love, not my merit, assures me you hold me your
friend, which esteem I am much desirous to retain.
Do me, therefore, the right to understand the
truth of that act, and in my behalf inform others,
who either are or may be infected with sinister
rumours, much prejudicial to that fair opinion I
desire to hold amongst all worthy persons, and on
the faith of a gentleman, the relation I shall give
is neither more nor less than the bare truth.
“To our seconds we gave power for their appointments,
who agreed we should go to Antwerp,
from thence to Bergen-op-zoom, where, in
the midway, a village divides the States’ territory
from the Archduke’s, and there was the
destined stage; to the end that, having ended, he
that could might presently exempt himself from
the justice of the country, by retiring into the
dominion not offended. It was farther concluded,
25that in case any should fall or slip, that then the
combat should cease, and he whose ill fortune had
so subjected him was to acknowledge his life to
have been in the other’s hands; but in case one
party’s sword should break, because that could only
chance by hazard, it was agreed that the other
should take no advantage, but either then be made
friends, or else, upon even terms, go to it again.
These three conclusions being by each of them
related to his party, were by us both approved
and assented to. Accordingly we re-embarked for
Antwerp, and by reason my Lord (as I conceive,
because he could not handsomely without danger
of discovery) had not paired the sword I sent him
to Paris, bringing one of the same length, but
twice as broad, my second excepted against it, and
advised me to match my own, and send him the
choice, which I obeyed, it being, you know, the
challenger’s privilege to elect his weapon.
“At the delivery of the swords, which was performed
by Sir John Heidon, it pleased the Lord
Bruce to choose my own; and then, past expectation,
he told him that he found himself so far
behind hand as a little of my blood would not
serve his turn, and therefore he was now resolved
to have me alone, because he knew (for I will use
his own words) ‘that so worthy a gentleman and
my friend could not endure and stand by and see
him do that which he must to satisfy himself and
his honour.’ Thereunto Sir John Heidon replied,
26‘that such intentions were bloody and butcherly,
far unfitting so noble a personage, who should desire
to bleed for reputation not for life;’ withal
adding, ‘he thought himself injured, being come
thus far, now to be prohibited from executing
those honourable offices he came for.’ The Lord
Bruce, for answer, only reiterated his former resolution,
the which, not for matter but for manner,
so moved me, as though, to my remembrance, I
had not of a long while eaten more liberally than
at dinner, and therefore unfit for such an action
(seeing the surgeons hold a wound upon a full
stomach much more dangerous than otherwise), I
requested my second to certify him I would presently
decide the difference, and should, therefore,
meet him on horseback, only waited on by our
surgeons, they being unarmed.
“Together we rode (but one before the other
some twelve score) about two English miles, and
then passion, having so weak an enemy to assail
as my direction, easily became victor, and using
his power, made me obedient to his commands.
I being very mad with anger, the Lord Bruce
should thirst after my life with a kind of assuredness,
seeing I had come so far and needlessly to give
him leave to regain his lost reputation, I bade him
alight, which with all willingness he quickly
granted, and there in a meadow, ankle-deep in
the water, at least, bidding farewell to our doublets,
in our shirts we began to charge each other,
27having afore commanded our surgeons to withdraw
themselves a pretty distance from us, conjuring
them besides, as they respected our favour or their
own safeties, not to stir, but to suffer us to execute
our pleasure, we being fully resolved (God forgive
us) to despatch each other by what means we could.
“I made a thrust at my enemy, but was short,
and in drawing back my arm I received a great
wound thereon, which I interpreted as a reward
for my short shooting; but in revenge, I pressed
into him, though I then missed him also; and then
received a wound in my right pap, which passed
level through my body, and almost to my back.
And there we wrestled for the two greatest and
dearest prizes we could ever expect trial for—honour
and life; in which struggling, my hand,
having but an ordinary glove on it, lost one of her
servants, though the meanest, which hung by a
skin, and to sight yet remaineth as before, and I
am put in hope one day to recover the use of it
again. But at last breathless, yet keeping our
holds, there past on both sides propositions of
quitting each other’s swords; but when amity was
dead, confidence could not live, and who should
quit first was the question, which on neither part
either would perform; and restriving again afresh,
with a kick and a wrench together I freed my
long-captive weapon, which incontinently levying
at his throat, being master still of his, I demanded
if he would ask his life or yield his sword? Both
28which, though in that imminent danger, he bravely
denied to do. Myself being wounded, and feeling
loss of blood, having three conduits running on me,
began to make me faint, and he courageously persisting
not to accord to either of my propositions,
remembrance of his former bloody desire, and feeling
of my present estate, I struck at his heart,
but with his avoiding, missed my aim, yet passed
through his body, and drawing back my sword,
repassed it through again, through another place,
when he cried, ‘Oh! I am slain,’ seconding his
speech with all the force he had to cast me: but
being too weak, after I had defended his assault,
I easily became master of him, laying him on his
back, when, being upon him, I redemanded if he
would request his life? But it seems he prized it
not at so dear a rate to be beholding for it, bravely
replying he scorned it! which answer of his was
so noble and worthy, as I protest, I could not find
in my heart to offer him any more violence, only
keeping him down; till at length, his surgeon,
afar off, cried out he would immediately die if his
wounds were not stopped: whereupon I asked if
he desired his surgeon should come? which he accepted
of; and so, being drawn away, I never
offered to take his sword, accounting it inhumane
to rob a dead man, for so I held him to be.
“This thus ended, I retired to my surgeon, in
whose arms after I had remained awhile, for want
of blood I lost my sight, and withal, as I then
29thought, my life also; but strong water and his
diligence, quickly recovered me; when I escaped a
great danger, for my Lord’s surgeon, when nobody
dreamt of it, came full at me with my
Lord’s sword; and had not mine, with my
sword, interposed himself, I had been slain by
those base hands, although my Lord Bruce, weltering
in his blood, and past all expectation of
life, conformable to all his former carriage, which
was undoubtedly noble, cried out ‘Rascal, hold
thy hand!’ So may I prosper, as I have dealt
sincerely with you in this relation, which I pray
you, with the inclosed letters, deliver to my Lord
Chamberlain.
Ed. Sackville.”
It does not appear that this fatal and barbarous
affair led to any proceedings against the Earl of
Dorset, nor did it diminish his favour at court.
After the desperate and fatal duel between
Duke Hamilton and Lord Mohun, a bill was
brought into the House of Commons for the prevention
of duelling, but was lost after a second
reading. The following is the account that Swift
gives of this meeting, in his letter to Mrs. Dingley,
but it must be borne in mind that political
animosities, which ran very high at this period,
gave a peculiar acrimonious character to the transaction,
the causes of which have never been satisfactorily
explained:—
“Before this comes to your hands, you will
30have heard of the most terrible accident that hath
almost ever happened. This morning, at eight,
my man brought me word that Duke Hamilton
had fought with Lord Mohun, and had killed
him, and was brought home wounded. I immediately
sent him to the Duke’s house to know if
it was so, but the porter could hardly answer his
inquiries, and a great rabble was about the house.
In short, they fought at seven this morning.
The dog Mohun was killed on the spot, but
while the Duke was over him, Mohun shortened
his sword, and stabbed him in the shoulder to the
heart. The Duke was helped toward the lake-house,
by the ring, in Hyde-park (where they
fought), and died on the grass, before he could
reach his house, and was brought home in his
coach by eight, while the poor Duchess was
asleep. M’Carthy and one Hamilton were the
seconds, who fought likewise, and both are fled.
I am told that a footman of Lord Mohun’s stabbed
Duke Hamilton, and some say M’Carthy did
so too. Mohun gave the affront, and yet sent the
challenge. I am infinitely concerned for the poor
Duke, who was a frank, honest, and good natured
man. They carried the poor Duchess to a lodging
in the neighbourhood, where I have been
with her two hours, and am just come away. I
never saw so melancholy a scene, for indeed all
reasons for real grief belong to her; nor is it possible
for any one to be a greater loser in all regards—she
31has moved my very soul. The lodging
was inconvenient, and they would have moved
her to another, but I would not suffer it, because
it had no room backwards, and she must
have been tortured with the noise of the Grub-street
screamers dinging her husband’s murder in
her ears.”
This duel must have been of the most murderous
nature, from the number of wounds that both
parties received. The Duke of Hamilton had received
one on the right side of the leg, about
seven inches long, another in the right arm, the
third in the upper part of the right breast, running
downwards towards the body, the fourth on the
outside of the left leg. Lord Mohun received a
large wound in the groin, another in the right
side through the body and up to the hilt of the
sword, and a third in his arm.
In the Postboy, of the 20th November, the following
particulars of this field meeting were given:—“Major-General
M’Carthy went three times to
the Duke, and was at the bagnio all night with
Lord Mohun, who was observed to be seized
with fear and trembling at the time. The seconds
were Colonel Hamilton, of the Foot-guards, for the
Duke, and M’Carthy for Lord Mohun. It appears
that the parties did not parry, but gave
thrusts at each other, and Lord Mohun shortening
his sword stabbed the Duke in the upper
part of the left breast running downwards into
32the body, which wound was fourteen inches long,
and he expired soon after he was put into the
coach. A dispute at law had existed between
the parties, but without any personal quarrel of
consequence.”
Swift, in his history of the four last years of
Queen Anne, says, that M’Carthy stabbed the
Duke after he was wounded by Lord Mohun.
He afterwards escaped to Holland, but in June,
1716, was tried for murder in the Court of King’s
Bench, and found guilty of manslaughter. Swift
relates a curious anecdote of a gentleman, who
being attacked by highwaymen, told them that
he was M’Carthy, upon which they brought him
before a justice in the hopes of receiving the reward
for his apprehension, when he gave the
rogues in charge.
This Lord Mohun appears to have been an unprincipled
character, whose associates were in
general as depraved and contemptible as himself.
In the year 1692, we find him tried for the murder
of Montford the player, an atrocious act, in
which he was at any rate most deeply implicated.
It appeared in this trial that Lord Mohun, with
a Captain Hall, had formed a project forcibly to
carry off Mrs. Bracegirdle, the actress, to whom,
or rather, to whose successful career on the stage
this Hall pretended to be attached. The worthy
pair hired a coach to go to Totteridge, directing
the driver to have six horses in readiness, and to
33be waiting, for them at Drury Lane, near the
theatre, with only two horses to the carriage,
about nine o’clock at night. The party had
dined together at a tavern in Covent Garden,
where Mrs. Bracegirdle became the subject of their
conversation; and both admitted their belief that
she was upon terms of more than common intimacy
with Montford, a popular performer at
that period. They therefore formed a plan to
carry her off forcibly that very night into the
country; for which purpose Hall had secured the
assistance of a party of soldiers belonging to his
company. In this conversation Hall told Lord
Mohun, that unless they could be at the theatre
by 6 o’clock, their plan would fail. They accordingly
repaired to the playhouse, and went
behind the scenes; where they were much disappointed
in being informed, that Mrs. Bracegirdle
was not to perform that night. Upon
this intelligence they withdrew; but found, upon
further inquiry, that she was to sup at the house
of a Mrs. Page, of Drury Lane; and they therefore
lay in wait for her near Lord Craven’s
house.
About 10 o’clock Mrs. Bracegirdle, accompanied
by Mr. Page, her mother, and her brother,
were returning home towards Howard Street
where she lived, when these ruffians seized her,
and, assisted by the soldiers, endeavoured to force
her into the carriage, while Captain Hall at the
34same time strove to drive away Mr. Page; but
Mrs. Bracegirdle’s mother firmly grasped her, and
struggled to protect her daughter. The uproar
had now become so great, the neighbourhood
being alarmed by the women’s shrieks, that several
persons rushed to the rescue, the desperate
project was defeated, and the soldiers were
dismissed by their commander. Mrs. Bracegirdle
and her party returned home; but Lord Mohun
and his companion watched near her house at the
corner of Norfolk Street, pacing up and down the
flags with drawn swords, waiting for Montford
whom they expected to pass in that direction,
on his way home. Tired of thus standing sentry,
these worthies, it appears, amused themselves by
drinking two bottles of wine in the street; some
surly watchmen, who observed their extraordinary
conduct and their naked swords, had the presumption
to question them, upon which Lord Mohun
told the insolent guardians of the night that
he was a peer of the realm, and dared them to
molest him: at the same time he condescended
to inform them, that his friend’s sword was drawn
in consequence of his having lost his scabbard.
The watch, therefore, very respectfully withdrew,
apologising for the breach of privilege, of which
they had involuntarily been guilty.
About 12 o’clock the unfortunate Montford,
who was returning from the theatre, fell in with
this worthy couple. Lord Mohun, it appears,
35approached him in a very cordial manner, and
went so far as to embrace him; when Montford
asked him what he possibly could be doing in
the street at that advanced hour of the night.
His lordship replied, “I suppose you have
heard of the lady?” To which Montford answered:
“I hope my wife (who was also a performer)
has given your Lordship no offence?”—“No,”
said Lord Mohun, “it is Mrs. Bracegirdle
I mean.” To which Montford observed:
“Mrs. Bracegirdle, my Lord, is no concern of
mine; but I hope your Lordship does not countenance
the conduct of Mr. Hall.”
Upon this, Captain Hall came forward; and
exclaiming “This is not a time to discuss such
matters,” ran Montford through the body; although
it was asserted during the trial, that
several passes had taken place between the parties
before the fatal wound had been inflicted. This
circumstance, however, was by no means clearly
proved. A cry of murder was raised, the
watch rushed in; but the assassin had fled. Lord
Mohun surrendered himself, observing, that he
hoped that Hall had made his escape, as he was
well satisfied to be hanged for him; and he
further avowed, that to facilitate his escape he
had changed coats with him.
It appeared upon the trial, that Hall had expressed
his wish to marry Mrs. Bracegirdle, and
conceived that the rivalry of Montford was the
36only obstacle to the success of his suit; he repeatedly
swore, that he would get rid of him
some way or other; and it was to effect this
purpose that he and Lord Mohun had exchanged
coats and hats in the scene-room of the theatre.
That the assassination of their victim had been
coolly premeditated, there could not be the slightest
doubt. Hall had spoken to Mrs. Knight, of
Drury Lane Theatre, telling her, that he was
certain that Mrs. Bracegirdle detested him in
consequence of her attachment to Montford, and
at the same time requested her, as an intimate
friend of Mrs. Bracegirdle, to give her a letter.
This proposal Mrs. Knight very properly declined,
observing, that she had already too many enemies
to increase their number. “What enemies?”
replied Hall. “Do you mean Montford? I
shall find a way to rid you of him speedily. Subsequently,
in the presence of a Mrs. Sandys, Hall
had sworn that he would stab Montford if he
resisted; and at the same time Lord Mohun
declared that he would stand by him. Hall, it
also appeared, had borrowed a brace of pistols
from a Captain Leister, to accomplish his purpose.
And further, when Hall seemed to doubt
the resolution of his lordship, and observed at
the tavern, that he was ruined, unless Lord
Mohun attended at the theatre to assist him by
6 o’clock, Lord Mohun replied, “Upon my soul
and honour I will be there!”
37Notwithstanding this evidence, Lord Mohun
was acquitted of the charge of having been
accessory to the murder. The only circumstance
in his favour was the question whether Hall had
stabbed Montford when unprepared, or whether
the unfortunate man had defended himself.
It was proved that his sword had been broken.
Howbeit, little doubt could exist as to the culpability
of Lord Mohun, in having coolly and
deliberately planned the act of violence against
Mrs. Bracegirdle, with a determination to rid
themselves of her supposed paramour any how;
and we cannot but marvel at his peers allowing
him to escape unpunished. It was the baseness
and profligacy of this man that confirmed the
general belief that the Duke of Hamilton had been
foully murdered by M’Carthy, Mohun’s second
and friend, no doubt as worthy as his former
companion Hall.
William Montford was an actor of considerable
merit, and was also a successful dramatic
writer. He was only thirty-three years of age
when he met with this untimely end. Cibber
speaks of him in the following terms:—“He
was tall in person, well made, fair, and of an
agreeable aspect. His voice full, clear, and melodious.
In tragedy, he was the most affecting
lover within my memory. His addresses had a
resistless recommendation, from the very tone of
38his voice, which gave his words such softness
that, as Dryden says,
Like flocks of feather’d snow,
They melted as they fell!
It was to be expected, that such worthless ruffians
as Mohun and Hall should have been anxious
to remove the rivalry of a person so likely
to please Mrs. Bracegirdle, although the intimacy
between her and Montford was such, as to leave
those acquainted with the parties firmly convinced
that no improper intercourse existed between
them. From her walk in the drama, they
constantly performed together, and a strict intimacy
had not only arisen between them, but
between Mrs. Bracegirdle and Mrs. Montford.
In 1662 a meeting took place between Mr. Jermyn,
nephew to the Earl of St. Alban’s, and afterwards
himself Lord Jermyn, and Colonel Giles
Rawlins on the one side; and Captain Thomas
Howard, brother to Lord Carlisle, and a friend
on the other. Mr. Jermyn was severely wounded,
and his second killed. They fought in the
old Pall Mall, St. James’s. Mr. Jermyn, the
challenged party, was entirely ignorant of the
nature of the offence he had given, nor could he
induce his antagonist to inform him. Captain
Howard was supposed to have worn a coat of
mail under his dress.
The records of Parliament notice a challenge
sent to Lord Chancellor Clarendon by Lord Ossory,
39son of the Duke of Ormond, for injurious
words made use of in the House of Lords, on
the debate upon a bill for prohibiting the importation
of Irish cattle into England. The Chancellor
submitted the message to the House. This bill
was intended to protect English agriculture and
the landed interest, and was chiefly supported by
Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale; and in
its provisions its framers appeared to have lost
sight of the fact, that if the Irish were deprived
of the means of selling their principal commodities,
it was not in their power to apply the produce
of the sale to the purchase of English goods.
Buckingham supported it with all his powers;
and indulging both in his national animosity
towards Ireland and his present enmity to the
Duke of Ormond, maintained with much vehemence,
that no one could oppose it who had not
an Irish interest and an Irish intellect. Lord
Ossory immediately sent him a challenge, which
Buckingham evaded, on the pretext that he
had mistaken the place and hour of the rendezvous,
during which time his opponent was apprehended.
This Bill led to much violent recrimination,
and also to personal conflict, Buckingham having
had a scuffle with the Marquis of Dorchester,
who tore off a handful of his hair, while the
Duke pulled off his periwig.
Pepys, in his notes, alludes to the sad prevalence
40of duels about this period, which he states
to be “a kind of emblem of the general complexion
of the whole kingdom” at the time; and
he relates, in the following terms, the meeting
that took place between Sir H. Bellasses and Mr.
Porter in 1667:—“They two dined yesterday
at Sir Robert Carr’s, where, it seems, people do
drink high, all that come. It happened that these
two, the greatest friends in the world, were talking
together, and Sir H. Bellasses talked a little
louder than ordinary to Tom Porter, giving him
some advice. Some of the company standing by
said, ‘What! are they quarrelling, that they talk
so high?’ Sir H. Bellasses hearing it, said, ‘No,
I would have you know, I never quarrel, but I
strike; take that as a rule of mine!’—‘How?’
said Tom Porter, ‘strike! I would I could see
the man in England that durst give me a blow?’
With that Sir H. Bellasses did give him a box
on the ear; and so they were going out to fight,
but were hindered. And by and by Tom Porter
went out; and meeting Dryden the poet, told
him of the business, and that he was resolved to
fight Sir H. Bellasses presently, for he knew, if
he did not, they would be friends to-morrow,
and then the blow would rest upon him; and he
desires Dryden to let him have his boy to bring
him notice which way Sir H. Bellasses goes. By
and by he is informed, that Sir H. Bellasses’s
coach was coming; so Tom Porter went down
41out of the coffee-room, where he stayed for the
tidings, and stopped the coach, and bade Sir H.
Bellasses come out. ‘Why,’ said Sir H. Bellasses,
“you will not hurt me coming out, will you?’—‘No,’
says Tom Porter. So out he went, and
both drew. And Sir H. Bellasses having drawn
and flung away the scabbard, Tom Porter asked
him, whether he was ready. The other answered,
he was; and they fell to fight, some
of their acquaintances by. They wounded one
another; and Sir H. Bellasses so much, that it
is feared he will die. And finding himself
severely wounded, he called to Tom Porter,
and kissed him, and bade him shift for himself;
‘for,’ says he, ‘Tom, thou hast hurt me;
but I will make shift to stand on my legs till
thou mayest withdraw, and the world not take
notice of thee; for I would not have thee troubled
for what thou hast done.’ And so, whether
he did fly or not, I cannot tell; but Tom Porter
showed Sir H. Bellasses that he was wounded
too; and they are both ill, but Sir H. Bellasses
to the life. And this is fine example! and Sir
H. Bellasses a parliament man too; and both of
them extraordinary friends” Bellasses only lived
a few days, and Pepys, in noticing his death,
adds: “It is pretty to see how the world talk of
them, as a couple of fools, that killed one another
out of love.” This deed took place in Covent
Garden.
42About the same period a duel took place between
the Earl of Shrewsbury and the Duke of
Buckingham. The latter, it appears, had debauched
Lady Shrewsbury, the daughter of the
Earl of Cardigan, and was challenged by her
husband. The King, who had been apprised of
the intended meeting, commanded the Duke of
Albemarle to secure Buckingham, and confine
him to his house. Albemarle, by all accounts,
wilfully neglected the royal command; and the
meeting took place. The Duke was attended by
Captain Holman and Sir J. Jenkins; and Lord
Shrewsbury was accompanied by Sir J. Talbot,
a gentleman of the Privy Chamber, and Lord
Bernard Howard, son of the Earl of Arundel.
The parties met at Barnes Elms. According to
the custom of the day, the seconds also engaged
each other. The combat on both sides was long
and desperate. Buckingham ran Lord Shrewsbury
through the body; Sir John Talbot was
severely wounded in both arms, and Jenkins was
left dead on the field. Buckingham and the
other seconds were only slightly wounded. It
was reported, that during this murderous conflict
Lady Shrewsbury, in a page’s attire, was holding
Buckingham’s horse in a neighbouring thicket,
to facilitate his escape in the event of his having
killed her husband. Such a circumstance is
very possible, as showing the profligacy of the
43times, since it was reported, and generally
believed, that Lady Shrewsbury had not only
been most anxious that the meeting should take
place, but actually slept the same night with her
paramour in the very shirt stained with the
blood from the wound he had received as her
champion.
The King, by proclamation, pardoned all parties
concerned in the death of Sir J. Jenkins, but
declared his determination not to extend his
gracious mercy to future offenders. After this
duel Buckingham, patronised by Lady Castlemaine,
openly took Lady Shrewsbury to live with
him in his own house; and when the Duchess
ventured to expostulate on such a line of conduct,
adding, that it was out of the question that
she and his mistress should live under the same
roof, he quietly replied, “That is also my opinion,
madam, and I have therefore ordered your coach
to carry you to your father.” Buckingham and
Lady Shrewsbury afterwards lived together at
Clifden.
Clifden’s proud alcove,
The bower of wanton Shrewsbury and love.
After the death of the Earl of Shrewsbury
this worthy pair dissipated the estate of the
young earl; when the matter was brought before
the House of Lords, and an award was made
that the Duke should not converse or cohabit
44with the Countess in future, and that each should
enter into a security to the King’s Majesty in the
sum of 10,000l. for that purpose.
Sir William Coventry, a commissioner of the
treasury, having been obliged by the vexation he
had experienced from Buckingham, to resign his
office, sent him a challenge, which was carried by
Captain Holmes, one of the favourite’s creatures,
to the King, who immediately committed Coventry
to the Tower.
The following anecdote fully illustrates the
profligacy and venality of that period:—
“Gondemar was at this period one of the most
dissolute and fashionable characters. He was
then Spanish ambassador at our Court, and lived
at Ely House, in Holborn, and his passage to
Court was ordinarily through Drury-lane, Covent-garden
being then an inclosed field. His gallantry
was so renowned and sought for, that it is
stated as he passed by, ladies would show themselves
at their balconies to “present him their
civilities” as he was carried in a litter, his infirmities
being such that he could neither walk nor
ride. One day passing by the Lady Jacob’s
house in Drury Lane, she exposed herself for a
salutation; he was not wanting to her, but she,
moving nothing but her mouth, gaped wide open
upon him. He wondered at the Lady’s incivility,
but thought it might be haply a yawning fit that
took her at that time; for trial whereof, the next
45day he finds her in the same place; his courtesies
were again accosted with no better expression
than an extended mouth. Whereupon he
sent a gentleman to her, to let her know that the
ladies of England were more gracious to him
than to encounter his respects with such affront.
She answered that it was true that he had purchased
some of their favours at a dear rate, and
she had a mouth to be stopped as well as others!
Gondemar finding the cause of the emotion of
her mouth, sent her a present as an antidote,
which cured her of the distemper.”
Buckingham’s marriage was an act of reparation
of his profligacy. He had seduced the only
daughter of the Earl of Rutland, and carried her
to his lodgings at Whitehall. After having kept
her there for some time he returned her to her
father, who intimated to the royal favourite, “that
he had too much of the gentleman to suffer such
an indignity, and if he did not marry his daughter
immediately, to restore her honour, no power
should protect him from his just revenge.” She
was heiress to a considerable fortune, and Buckingham
complied with the Earl’s injunction.
In 1661, a quarrel arose in London between
several ambassadors, which proved likely to lead
to serious consequences. Philip IV. of Spain had
sent the Baron de Batteville to London, where
the Comte d’Estrade was ambassador for France.
The Comte de Brabe, the Swedish ambassador,
46had made his first entry in town, when a dispute
arose amongst these ministers regarding precedence,
each being anxious to take the lead of the
other. The Baron de Batteville had cut the
traces of the carriage of the French ambassador,
and when the domestics of the latter sought to
retaliate, they found that chains had been used
instead of ordinary traces. The King of France
recalled his minister, and the Spanish monarch
sent the Comte de Fuentes to Paris to apologize
for the conduct of his ambassador. A duel had
been expected, as the Comte d’Estrade had been
engaged in the hostile meeting between the Duc
de Guise and the Comte de Coligny, and was
considered a very punctilious person in such matters;
but the parties very wisely had referred the
affair to their respective courts.
At this period the pit of the theatre became the
constant arena of quarrels that led to duels. The
young bloods of the day made it a point to go to
the playhouse, for the mere purpose of insulting
females, and getting themselves involved in disputes
that might increase their fashionable popularity.
In 1720, Mrs. Oldfield, a celebrated actress,
was performing in “The Scornful Lady,”
when Beau Fielding (the Orlando the Fair of
the Tatler) insulted a barrister of the name of
Fulwood, by pushing rudely against him. Fulwood
expostulated with some degree of violence,
upon which Fielding laid his hand upon his
47sword. The pugnacious lawyer drew, and gave
his antagonist a severe wound in the body. Beau
Fielding, who was then a man of above fifty
years of age, came forward, and uncovering his
breast, showed his bleeding wound to the public,
to excite the compassion of the fair sex; but, to
his no small disappointment, a burst of laughter
broke forth from the audience. Fulwood, emboldened
by his success with Fielding, repaired to
Lincoln’s-inn-fields Theatre, where he picked up
another quarrel with a Captain Cusack, and then
demanded satisfaction. They went into the fields,
and the lawyer was professionally despatched by
the soldier, and left dead on the ground.
Ball-rooms, masquerades, theatres, the open
streets, the public walks, bagnios, and coffee-houses,
now became constant scenes of strife and
bloodshed; Covent-garden and Lincoln’s-inn-fields
became the rendezvous for deciding points
of honour; and at all hours of the night the clashing
of swords might be heard by the peaceable
citizens returning home, at the risk of being insulted
and ill treated by the pretty fellows, and
the beaux of the day. The system of duelling
pervaded all classes, and even physicians were
wont to decide their professional altercations at
the point of the sword. Doctors Mead and
Woodward fought under the gate of Gresham
College; the latter slipped his foot and fell.
“Take your life,” exclaimed Dr. Mead. “Any
48thing but your physic,” replied the prostrate
Woodward.
Dr. Williams and Dr. Bennet, who had grossly
abused each other in print on matters relating to
their profession, had recourse to blows, when Dr.
Bennet proposed a meeting to decide the business
like gentlemen. This proposal being rejected by
Dr. Williams, Dr. Bennet went the next morning
to his house, and rapped at his door; Williams,
on opening it, discharged a pistol, loaded with
swan-shot, in the other’s breast. The wounded
doctor retired across the way towards a friend’s
house, being pursued by Williams, who, very near
the door, fired a second pistol at him, and, whilst
Bennet was endeavouring to draw his sword,
which had been pacifically adhering fast to the
scabbard, Williams ran him through the body.
Bennet, although in this dismal condition, was able
to draw his rapier; and praying to God to invigorate
him to avenge his wrongs, he gave Williams
a home thrust, which entered the upper part of
his breast and came out at the shoulder blade, the
sword snapping and part of it remaining in the
wound. Williams in retreating to his house fell
down dead, and Bennet lived but four hours after.
In the same year a duel was fought at Kinsale,
in Ireland, which originated from Ensign Sawyer,
of O’Farrell’s regiment, having beaten the servant
of an officer of the same corps, for giving a
slighting answer to his wife. His master, Captain
49Wrey, had permitted his servant to obtain a
warrant for the assault, which the Ensign hearing
of, before he could be served with it, challenged
the Captain to fight him on the spot.
The Captain, after having in vain remonstrated
with him upon the impropriety of his conduct,
accompanied him to some distance out of town, to
gain some time for persuasion; when the Ensign
on a sudden drew his sword, and at the first onset
wounded the Captain in the left breast; at
the second pass, in the left arm, but on the third
lounge the Captain ran him through the body,
by which he expired in two hours, first owning
himself the aggressor, and giving the Captain a
kiss as a last farewell.
A fatal duel took place the same year between
a Mr. Paul and a Mr. Dalton. They had passed
the evening together in the company of some
ladies, to one of whom Mr. Dalton was on the
point of being married. A quarrel arose, and
they parted in anger, especially Mr. Paul, who
immediately after went to Mr. Dalton’s lodgings,
and not finding him at home, sent a message to
him at a tavern, where he understood he was
spending the evening. Mr. Dalton, upon reading
it, hastened home, and in a few minutes after entered
the room where Mr. Paul was waiting for
him. The servant, soon after hearing a noise like
fencing, ran up stairs; but before he could enter
the room, heard the street-door shut; the candles
50were out, and Mr. Paul had fled. He found his
master expiring, having a wound in the upper
part of his left breast. Upon this occasion the
coroner’s jury returned a verdict of wilful murder.
Mr. Paul never submitted to his trial, and was
outlawed.
While personal meetings were then frequent,
and often carried on in the most dishonourable
manner, general frays were not uncommon. In
1717, after a levee, a large party of gentlemen
were assembled at the Royal Chocolate-house, in
St. James’s-street. Disputes at hazard produced
a quarrel, which became general throughout the
room; a mêlée ensued, and as they all fought with
swords, three of the party were mortally wounded.
The affray was only terminated by the interference
of a party of the Guards; who, as entreaties
and commands were of no avail, knocked
the most pugnacious of the combatants down
with the but-end of their muskets. A footman
of one of the party (a Colonel Cunningham), who
was greatly attached to his master, rushed through
the drawn swords; and seizing him round the
waist, actually carried him away.
In 1720, at twelve at night, about one hundred
gentlemen were engaged in a riot in Windmill-street
with swords and canes, when several of the
party were desperately wounded. The watchmen
sought to interfere, but were knocked down
and barbarously ill-treated. At last a patrole of
51Horse Guards came up; and finding the rioters
obstinate, rode through them, cutting at them
with their swords. Some were killed, and several
of them were so desperately wounded that fears
of their recovery were entertained. The quarrel
had begun between two chairmen. Such was the
state of society in London, and of its police, at
that period.
A week after this outrageous breach of the
peace, a Captain Fitzgerald, and three young
men, met a lady in the Strand, returning from
St. James’s in a sedan-chair. They stopped the
chairmen, and brutally attempted to force the
lady out. The chairmen opposed them; then
they drew their swords, and demolished the vehicle.
The watchmen interfered, and one of them
was run through the body, and immediately expired.
Clubs were formed of those desperadoes, who
assumed the name of the “Bold Bucks,” and the
“Hell-fires.” “Blind and Bold Love” was the
motto of the former association, the members of
which, according to a contemporary writer, “attempt
females of their own species promiscuously.
Their own sisters fear their violence, and
fly their privacies.” Atheism was an indispensable
qualification for admission into their society,
and their favourite dish for supper, at the taverns
they haunted, was called “A Holy Ghost Pie;”
but their chief house of rendezvous was a tavern
52near Somerset House, where they usually assembled
during Divine service with a loud band of
music.
Their excesses became so notorious, and proved
such a public grievance, that in 1721, a Royal proclamation
was issued to suppress those clubs, and
about the same time a check was put to duelling
by the sentence of death passed on a Major
Oneby, who thought it advisable to baulk the
executioner and the public curiosity by committing
suicide.
The following are the particulars of this very
important case:—Major Oneby was indicted in
the year 1726, for the murder of Mr. Gower, and
a special verdict was found, stating that the prisoner
being in company with the deceased, and
three other persons, at a tavern, in a friendly
manner, after some time began playing at hazard;
when Rich, one of the company, asked if any one
would set him three half crowns; whereupon the
deceased, in a jocular manner, laid down three
halfpence, telling Rich he had set him three
pieces, and the prisoner at the same time set Rich
three half crowns, and lost them to him. Immediately
after which, the prisoner, in an angry manner,
turned about to the deceased and said, “It
was an impertinent thing to set down halfpence,
and that he was an impertinent puppy for so doing;”
to which the deceased answered, “whoever
called him so was a rascal.” Thereupon the prisoner
53took up a bottle, and with great force threw
it at the deceased’s head, but did not hit him, the
bottle only brushing some of the powder out of
his hair. The deceased, in return, immediately
tossed a candlestick or bottle at the prisoner,
which missed him; upon which they both rose
up to fetch their swords, which were then hung
up in the room, and the deceased drew his sword,
but the prisoner was prevented drawing his by
the company; the deceased thereupon threw
away his sword, and the company interposing,
they sat down again for the space of an hour.
At the expiration of that time, the deceased
said to the prisoner, “We have had hot words, and
you were the aggressor, but I think we may pass
it over,” at the same time offering his hand to
the prisoner, who made for answer, “No, d—n
you, I will have your blood.”
After which, the reckoning being paid, all the
company, with the exception of the prisoner,
went out of the room to go home, and he called
to the deceased, saying, “Young man, come
back, I have something to say to you.” Whereupon
the deceased returned into the room, and
immediately the door was closed, and the rest of
the company excluded; but they heard a clashing
of swords, and the prisoner gave the deceased
his mortal wound. It was also found that, on
the breaking up of the company, the prisoner had
his great coat thrown over his shoulders, and that
54he received three slight wounds in the fight; and
that the deceased being asked upon his death-bed
whether he had received his wounds in a manner
amongst swordsmen called fair, answered “I
think I did.” It was further found that after the
throwing of the bottle, there was no reconciliation
between the prisoner and the deceased.
Upon these facts all the judges were of opinion
that the prisoner was guilty of murder; he having
acted upon malice and deliberation, and not
from sudden passion. The argument of the Chief
Justice went to show, that after the door had
been shut the parties were upon an equal footing
in point of preparation before the fight began, in
which the mortal wound was given. The main
point then, on which the judgment turned, and
so declared to be, was the evidence of express
malice, after the interposition of the company,
and the parties had all sat down again for an hour.
Under these circumstances the Court were of
opinion that the prisoner had had reasonable time
for cooling; after which, upon an offer of reconciliation
from the deceased, he had made use of
that bitter and deliberate expression, “That he
would have his blood;” and again, the prisoner remaining
in the room after the rest of the company
had retired, and calling back the deceased
by the contemptuous appellation of “young man,”
on pretence of having something to say to him,
altogether showed such strong proof of deliberation
55and coolness, as precluded the presumption
of passion having continued down to the time of
the mortal stroke, and that there was no doubt
but that he had compelled Gower to defend
himself.
It was also about this period that Addison and
Steele, in the Spectator and the Tatler, endeavoured
to draw public attention to this subject,
and used both the power of persuasion and raillery
to discountenance the disgraceful practice.
In No. 84 of the Spectator, Steele wrote an essay
against duelling, and in the character of Spinamont
he alluded to a meeting that had taken
place between Sir Cholmondeley Dering and Mr.
Thornhill, when the former was killed. Thornhill
was acquitted of the charge of murder; but
two months after, he was stabbed by two men on
Turnham-green, who exclaimed as they struck
him, “Remember Sir Cholmondeley Dering.”
In the 9th number of the Spectator, Addison
commences his remarks on duelling by describing
the “Hum-Drum and Mum Clubs,” and adds,
“I cannot forbear mentioning a mischievous one
that was erected in the reign of Charles II, I
mean the club of duellists, in which none was to
be admitted that had not fought his man. The
president of it was said to have killed half a dozen
in single combat; and as for the other members
they took their seats according to the number of
their slain. There was likewise a side-table for
56such as had only drawn blood, and shown a laudable
ambition of taking the first opportunity to qualify
themselves for the first table. This club, which
consisted only of men of honour, did not continue
long, most of the members being put to the
sword, or hanged, a little after the institution.”
In a paper, No. 99, Addison relates the following
anecdote:—“An English peer[5] used to tell
a pleasant story of a French gentleman who visited
him very early one morning; and after great
professions of respect, let him know that he had
it in his power to oblige him, which in short
amounted to this, that he believed he could tell
his Lordship the person’s name who had jostled
him as he came out of the Opera; but before he
would proceed, he begged his Lordship that he
would not deny him the honour of making him
his second. The English Lord, to avoid being
drawn into a very foolish affair, told him he was
under particular engagements for his two next
duels, to a couple of particular friends. Upon
which the gentleman immediately withdrew, hoping
his Lordship would not take it ill if he meddled
no further in an affair from whence he himself
was to reap no advantage.”
Steele himself, notwithstanding his efforts to
discountenance duelling, was drawn into a quarrel
that very nearly proved fatal. At that period he
was an officer in the Coldstream Guards, when a
57brother officer communicated to him his intention
of calling out a person who had offended him, but
was dissuaded from this purpose by the powerful
arguments of Steele. Some of the other officers
of the regiment thought proper to spread a report
that Steele had thus interfered in the affair to
skreen the offender from a merited chastisement,
thus compromising the honour of the person
whom he had offended. A challenge was therefore
sent to Steele. He sought in vain to avoid
the meeting, but at last consented. Relying on
his skill in swordsmanship, he felt persuaded that
he could chastise the aggressor without endangering
his life. The parties met, and Steele’s buckle
breaking as he was tightening his shoe, he urged
this accident to induce the challenger to desist,
but to no purpose. Swords were crossed, Steele
parried several lounges, till at last, in an attempt
to disarm his antagonist, he ran him through the
body. After lingering some time in a hopeless
state, Steele was delighted to hear of his recovery.
Notwithstanding the vogue of duelling, in
many instances, as in the case of Steele, persons
who were challenged endeavoured to decline a
meeting, and the following letter from an officer
of the Guards to a gentleman who had called him
out, is an illustration of the light in which private
combat was even then viewed by men of real
honour:—
“Sir,—I reckon it my peculiar happiness that
58I can produce the officers and soldiers who witnessed
my behaviour at Fontenoy, as evidence of
my courage. You may endeavour, if you please, to
propagate my refusing your challenge, and brand
me with cowardice; but I am fully convinced that
nobody will believe me guilty, and every one will
see that you are malicious. The cause in which
we quarrelled was a trifle: the blood of a soldier
should be reserved for nobler purposes. Love is
blind, resentment mean, and taste capricious; and
it ought to be considered that murder, though palliated
by a false show of honour, is murder still,
and calls for vengeance.”
During the administration of Sir Robert Walpole
the practice of duelling was most fashionable,
and of course frequently resorted to. In the following
letter to Mann, we find an illustration of
the manners of the day (1750).
“About ten days ago, at the new Lady Cobham’s
assembly, Lord Hervey was leaning over a
chair talking to some women, and holding his hat
in his hand; Lord Cobham came up and spit in
it—yes, spit in it—and then, with a loud laugh,
turned to Nugent, and said ‘Pay me my wager.’
In short, he had laid a guinea that he committed
this absurd brutality, and that it was not resented.
Lord Hervey, with great temper and sense, asked
if he had any further occasion for his hat. ‘Oh,
I see you are angry.’ ‘Not very well pleased.’
Lord Cobham took the fatal hat and wiped it, and
59made a thousand foolish apologies, and wanted
to pass it off as a joke. Next morning he rose
with the sun, and went to visit Lord Hervey: he
would not see him, but wrote to the spitter (or,
as he is now called. Lord Gob’em), to say that he
had grossly insulted him before company, but
having involved Nugent in it, he desired to know
to which he was to address himself for satisfaction.
Lord Cobham made a most submissive
answer, and begged pardon both in his own and
Nugent’s name. Here it rested for a few days,
till, the matter getting wind, Lord Hervey wrote
again to insist upon an explicit apology under Lord
Cobham’s own hand, with a rehearsal of the excuses
that had been made to him. This too was complied
with, and the fair conqueror showed all the
letters. Nugent’s disgraces have not ended here.
The night of his having declaimed so furiously
against Lord Sandwich, he was standing by Lady
Catherine Pelham at the masquerade, without his
mask. She was telling him some history of a
mad dog (which I believe she had bit herself).
Young Leveson, the Duchess of Bedford’s brother,
came up, without his mask too, and looking
at Nugent, said, ‘I have seen a mad dog to-day,
and a silly dog too.’ ‘I suppose, Mr. Leveson,
you have been looking in the glass.’ ‘No,
I see him now.’ Upon which they walked off
together, but were prevented from fighting (if
Nugent would have fought), and were reconciled
60at the sideboard. The former circumstance gave
rise to a vulgar, but for a time, a fashionable saw,
‘We spit in his hat on Thursday, and wipe it off
on Friday.’”
Walpole calls Lord Hervey “The fair conqueror,”
from his great effeminacy, which induced
Lord Cobham, better known as Earl Temple, to
insult him in so gross a manner.
As the fashion of wearing swords gradually fell
into desuetude, pistols were brought into play,
and the fatal duel between Lord Byron and Mr.
Chaworth was one of the last that took place
with side-arms.
DUEL OF LORD BYRON AND MR. CHAWORTH, 1765.
On the 26th of January, 1765, Lord Byron
and several other gentlemen dined together at the
Star and Garter Tavern in Pall-mall. The party
were chiefly from the county of Nottingham,
assembled in a club, about seven in the evening.
The conversation turned upon the subject of game;
upon this occasion Mr. Chaworth had a warm
argument with a gentleman seated next to him
about the best manner of preserving game. Lord
Byron joined the conversation, and gave as his
opinion, that the best method was to take no care
of it. Mr. Chaworth differed in opinion, and
thought it more advisable to be strict with
poachers. This drew on an altercation. Mr.
Chaworth asserted that there was not a hare in
61that part of the county which was not preserved
by him, or by Sir Charles Sedley. Upon which
Lord Byron offered a bet of 100l. that he had
more game on a manor or manors of his, than
Mr. Chaworth had on any belonging to him.
Mr. Chaworth accepted the wager, and made a
memorandum of it. Lord Byron then observed,
with some degree of warmth, and in a sarcastic
manner, “Sir Charles Sedley’s manors! where are
his manors!” To which Mr. Chaworth replied,
with equal heat, “The manors of Hucknel and
Nuttall.” To which Lord Byron replied, “I
know no manors of Sir Charles Sedley.” Mr.
Chaworth then observed that the manor of Nuttall
was his, and that he had purchased it from
his (Chaworth’s) family, and added, “If your
Lordship wants any further information about
his manors, Sir Charles Sedley lives in Dean-street,
and your Lordship knows where to find me in
Berkley-square.”
After this altercation the party remained together
for about an hour in apparent good
humour, and the conversation turned on various
subjects. About eight o’clock Mr. Chaworth left
the room, and asked a gentleman of the name of
Douston, who was quitting it at the same time,
whether he had observed the dispute between
him and Lord Byron. This person replied, that
he had heard part of it. On which Chaworth
asked him if he thought he had gone far enough;
62to which Mr. D. replied that he thought he had
gone too far, that it was altogether a silly business,
and neither of them should think any more
about it.
Shortly after Lord Byron left the room also,
and met Mr. Chaworth, when he stated that he
wished to speak with him. He then called a
waiter, and asked if there were any room disengaged.
The waiter then showed them to an unoccupied
room, and went in with a candle, which
was all the light, except a dull fire, that was in
the apartment. Lord Byron asked Mr. Chaworth
whether it was to him or to Sir Charles
Sedley, that he was to have recourse on the disputed
subject. Mr. Chaworth then replied that
it was to him, and that if he had any thing
further to say in the matter it might be advisable
to shut the door, which he immediately
did; when turning round, he perceived
Lord Byron with his sword half drawn, who
instantly exclaimed, “Draw!” Mr. Chaworth
immediately complied, and at the first thrust his
sword passed through Lord Byron’s waistcoat,
and he thought he had wounded him, when Lord
Byron shortened his sword, and gave him the fatal
wound, observing at the same time that he had as
much courage as any man in England. A struggle
then took place between the parties, for when
the waiter and the landlord entered the room
they were grasped in each others arms, Mr. Chaworth
63holding his sword in his left hand, and
Lord Byron having his in his right hand. Chaworth
gave up his sword readily, but Lord Byron
only surrendered his with reluctance. Hawkrup,
the surgeon, was immediately sent for, and pronounced
the wound to be mortal. The sword
had entered about an inch on the left side of the
naval, and passing obliquely upwards, had made
its exit about five or six inches higher on the left
side of the back, and in its passage had made a
large opening in the bottom of the stomach,
wounded one of the small intestines, and had
passed through the diaphragm.
It appears that when the sword of Mr. Chaworth
passed through the waistcoat of his antagonist,
he expressed his apprehension that he had
seriously wounded him. Now, under such an
apprehension, it is probable that he was thrown
off his guard, when Lord Byron immediately
shortened his sword and ran him through the
body, the unfortunate gentleman endeavouring
to parry the thrust with his left hand, and seizing
the gripe of his sword and struggling for it, still
saying that he hoped his Lordship was not seriously
hurt; it was then that Lord Byron exclaimed,
“That he hoped he would acknowledge
that he was as brave a man as any other in the
kingdom.”
Writhing under the agonies of his wound,
Chaworth several times declared, that although he
64well knew that he was in immediate danger
of death, and pained and distressed as he then
was, he had rather be in his present situation,
than live under the misfortune of having killed
another person; and when questioned on
the nature of the quarrel, he expressed his conviction
that it might have been easily made
up. When asked by one of his relations, Mr.
Leveriz, if the business had been fair, he remained
silent. He only observed soon after, that
when, after closing the door, he turned round,
he perceived that Lord Byron’s sword was half
drawn; knowing his man, he drew his own as
quickly as he could, and had the first pass at him.
He further added, that he did not believe that
Lord Byron intended fighting him when they
entered the room, but seeing him up by the door,
with scarcely any light in the room, he believed
he thought he had him at advantage.
Lord Byron, in his defence, stated that the deceased
had treated him during the altercation “in
a slighting and contemptuous manner,” stating
that he had more game on five acres of his manor,
than was on all his lordship’s estates. He further
stated, that on leaving the club-room he met
Chaworth on the stairs, who asked him “if he
had any commands for him,” to which he replied,
“I should be glad of an opportunity of speaking
a few words to you.” The door being closed,
Lord Byron asked him “How am I to take those
65words you used, as an intended affront from Sir
Charles Sedley or yourself,” to which, according
to the survivor’s statement, Chaworth replied,
“Your Lordship may take them as you please,
either as an affront or not, and I imagine this
room is as fit a place as any other to decide the
affair in.” Lord Byron admitted, that at the
very moment when his antagonist received his
mortal wound, he exclaimed, “I am afraid I have
killed your Lordship!” while at the same time
“he put his left hand to his belly, and Lord Byron
observing that blood was flowing, expressed his
fear that he had seriously wounded him, when he
went to pull the bell for assistance, Mr. Chaworth
saying, “My Lord, all I have to say is,
that you have behaved like a gentleman.”
The House of Lords found William, Lord
Byron, “not guilty of the felony of murder, but
of manslaughter,” and his Lordship, claiming the
benefit of the statute of Edward VI, was discharged,
paying his fees.
This unfortunate duel leads to many important
reflections. It appears that the parties were
sober, that no previous ill-will existed between
them; but that the vanity of both had been hurt
by reflections on their manorial possessions; and
the subject of game has ever been, and still continues
to be, a sore one amongst country gentlemen.
To fight without seconds has at all times been
considered a murderous transaction; since no evidence
66can be produced to prove that the foulest
treachery may not have been perpetrated. Chaworth
declined (most probably from a high sense
of honour) accusing his antagonist of foul play;
but he at the same time, on his death-bed, also declined
admitting that there had been fair play.
Lord Byron stated, that having parried Mr. Chaworth’s
first thrust, he made a second, which he
also parried; and that then finding himself with
his back against the table, with great disadvantage
of light, he endeavoured to shift a little more
to the right hand, which unavoidably brought
him nearer to his antagonist, when they both
made a thrust at the same time, Mr. C.’s sword
passing against his ribs, and cutting his waistcoat
and shirt for upwards of eight inches, and he
supposes that it was then that Mr. C. received
the unlucky wound.
It is impossible to form an opinion on this
event, as to the fairness of the duel; it only tends
to show, that any fatal meeting without seconds,
should be visited with such severity as to prevent
the probability of a recurrence.
In 1762, was fought the celebrated duel between
Earl Talbot and John Wilkes. The dispute
had originated in words used in the 12th
number of the North Briton, on the 21st August,
which conveyed reflections injurious to Earl
Talbot, when Wilkes wrote the following letter to
Colonel Berkeley (afterwards Lord Bottetourt):—
67“Winchester, Sept. 30, 1762.
“Sir,
“Lord Talbot, by your message, has at last
brought this most important question to the
precise point where my first answer to his Lordship
fixed it, if he preferred that. As you have
only seen the two last letters, I must entreat you
to cast your eye over those preceding; because I
apprehend they will justify an observation or two
I made this morning, when I had the honour of
paying my respects to you at camp. Be assured,
that if I am between heaven and earth, I will be
on Tuesday evening at Telbury’s, the Red Lion,
at Bagshot, and on Wednesday morning will play
this duel with his Lordship.
“It is a real satisfaction to me that his Lordship
is to be accompanied by a gentleman of
Colonel Berkeley’s worth and honour.
“This will be delivered to you by my Adjutant,
who attends me at Bagshot. I shall not
bring any servant with me, from the fear of any
of the parties being known. My pistols only, or
his Lordship’s, at his option, shall decide this point.
“I beg the favour of you to return me the
letters, as I mean to leave Winchester this evening.
I have Lord Bruce’s leave of absence for
ten days.
“I am, &c.
“John Wilkes.
“I hope we may make a partie quarrée for supper
on Tuesday, at Bagshot.”
68To this lively letter the following reply was
sent:—
“Camp, near Winchester, Sept. 30, 1762.
“Sir,
“I have sent all the letters, and shall
depend upon the pleasure of supping with you
at Telbury’s, the Red Lion, at Bagshot, Tuesday
evening. My servant will attend me, as the
going alone would give room for suspicion; but
you may depend upon his following your directions
at Bagshot, and that he shall not be seen
where you would not have him. I am much
obliged by your favourable opinion, and am, &c.
“H. Berkeley.”
“To Colonel Wilkes.”
In a letter to Earl Temple, Wilkes gives the
following account of this singular meeting:—
“Red Lion, at Bagshot,
”Tuesday, 10 at night, Oct. 5, 1762.
“My Lord,
“I had the honour of transmitting to your
Lordship copies of seven letters which passed
between Lord Talbot and me. As the affair
is now over, I inclose an original letter of
Colonel Berkeley’s, with a copy of mine previous
to it, which fixed the particulars of our meeting,
and therefore remained a secret, very sacredly
kept by the four persons concerned.
“I came here at three this afternoon, and
about five was told that Lord Talbot and Colonel
69Berkeley were in the house. Lord Talbot had
been here at one, and was gone again, leaving a
message, however, that he would soon return. I
had continued in the room where I was at my
first coming for fear of raising any suspicion. I
sent a compliment to Colonel Berkeley, and that
I wished to see him; he was so obliging as to
come to me directly. I told him that I supposed
we were to sup together with Lord Talbot, whom
I was ready to attend as became a private gentleman,
and that he and Mr. Harris (my Adjutant),
as our seconds, would settle the business of the
next morning, according to my letter to him
from Winchester, and his answer. Berkeley said
that his Lordship wished to finish the business
immediately. I replied, that the appointment
was to sup together that evening and to fight in
the morning; that in consequence of such an
arrangement, I had, like an idle man of pleasure,
put off some business of real importance, which I
meant to settle before I went to bed. I added,
that I came from Medmenham Abbey, where the
jovial monks of St. Francis had kept me up till
four in the morning. That the world would
therefore conclude that I was drunk, and form no
favourable opinion of his Lordship from a duel at
such a time; that it more became us both to take
a cool hour of the next morning, and as early a
one as was agreeable to his Lordship. Berkeley
said that he had undertaken to bring us together,
70and as we were both now at Bagshot, he would
leave us to settle our own business. He then
asked me if I would go with him to his Lordship.
I said I would any moment he pleased. We
went directly, with my Adjutant.
“I found his Lordship in an agony of passion.
He said that I had injured him; that he was not
used to be injured or insulted. What did I
mean? Did I, or did I not, write the North
Briton of August the 21st, which affronted his
honour? He would know; he insisted on a direct
answer; here were his pistols. I replied, that he
would soon use them; that I desired to know by
what right his Lordship catechised me about a
paper that did not bear my name; that I should
never resolve the question to him till he made
out the right of putting it; and that if I could
have entertained any other idea, I was too well
bred to have given his Lordship and Colonel
Berkeley the trouble of coming to Bagshot. I
observed that I was a private English gentleman,
perfectly free and independent, which I held to
be a character of the highest dignity; that I
obeyed with pleasure a gracious sovereign, but
would never submit to the arbitrary dictates of a
fellow-subject, a lord steward of his household,
my superior indeed in rank, fortune, and abilities,
but my equal only in honour, courage, and liberty.
His Lordship then asked me if I would
fight him that evening. I said that I preferred
71the next morning, as it had been settled before,
and gave my reasons. His Lordship replied that
he insisted on finishing the affair immediately. I
told him that I should very soon be ready; that
I did not mean to quit him, but would absolutely
first settle some important business relative to the
education of my only daughter, whom I tenderly
loved; that it would take up but very little time;
and that I would immediately decide the affair in
any way he chose, for I had brought both sword
and pistols. I rang the bell for pen, ink, and
paper, desiring his Lordship to conceal his pistols,
that they might not be seen by the waiters. He
soon after became half frantic, and used a thousand
indecent expressions, that I should be hanged,
damned, &c., &c. I said that I was not to be
frightened, nor in the least affected by such
violence; that God had given me a firmness and
spirit equal to his Lordship’s, or any man’s; that
cool courage should always mark me; and that it
would be seen how well bottomed he was.
“After the waiter had brought pen, ink, and
paper, I proposed that the door of the room
should be locked, and not opened till our business
was decided. His Lordship, on this proposition,
became quite outrageous; declared that this
was mere butchery, and that I was a wretch who
sought his life. I reminded him that I came
there on a point of honour to give his Lordship
satisfaction; that I mentioned the circumstance
72of shutting the door only to prevent all possibility
of interruption; and that I would, in every circumstance,
be governed, not by the turbulence of
the most violent temper I had ever seen, but by the
calm determination of our two seconds, to whom
I implicitly submitted. His Lordship then asked
me if I would deny the paper. I answered that
I would neither own nor deny it; if I survived, I
would afterwards declare, but not before.
“Soon after he grew a little cooler, and in a
soothing tone of voice, said, ‘I have never, I believe,
offended Mr. Wilkes, why has he attacked
me? He must be sorry to see me unhappy.’ I
asked him upon what grounds his Lordship imputed
the paper to me? That Mr. Wilkes would
justify any paper to which he had put his name,
and would equally assert the privilege of not
giving any answer whatever about a paper to
which he had not; that that was my undoubted
right, which I was ready to seal with my blood.
“He then said he admired me exceedingly,
really loved me, but I was an unaccountable animal—such
parts! But would I kill him who had
never offended me? &c., &c. We had after this a
good deal of conversation about the Bucks’ Militia
and the day his Lordship came to see me on
Wycombe Heath, before I was colonel. He soon
after flamed out again, and said to me, ‘You
are a murderer, you want to kill me, but I am
sure I shall kill you, I know I shall, by G—d!
73If you will fight, if you will kill me, I hope you
will be hanged. I know you will.’ I asked if
I was first to be killed and afterwards to be
hanged? That I knew his Lordship fought me
with the King’s pardon in his pocket, and I
fought him with a halter about my neck. That
I would fight him for all that, and if he fell I
should not tarry here a moment for the tender
mercies of such a ministry; but would directly
proceed to the next stage, where my valet waited
for me, from thence I would make the best of
my way to France, as men of honour were sure of
protection in that country. He then told me that
I was an unbeliever, and wished to be killed. I
could not help smiling at this, and observed that
we did not meet at Bagshot to settle articles of
faith, but points of honour; that, indeed, I had
no fear of dying, but I enjoyed life as much as
any man; that I am as little subject to be gloomy
or even peevish, as any Englishman whatever;
that I valued life and the fair enjoyments of it so
much, I would never quit it with my own consent,
except on a call of honour.
“I then wrote a letter to your Lordship, respecting
the education of Miss Wilkes, and gave
you my poor thanks for the steady friendship
with which you have so many years honoured
me. Colonel Berkeley took the care of the letter,
and I have since desired him to send it to Stowe;
for the sentiments of the head at such a moment
74are beyond all politics, and indeed everything
else, except such virtue as Lord Temple’s.
“When I had sealed my letter, I told his Lordship
I was entirely at his service, and I again
desired that we might decide the affair in the
room, because there could not be a possibility of
interruption; but he was quite inexorable. He
then asked me how many times we should fire.
I said, that I left it to his choice. I had brought
a flask of powder and a bag of bullets. Our
seconds then charged the pistols which my Adjutant
had brought. They were large horse-pistols.
It was agreed that we should fire at the word
of command, to be given by one of our seconds.
They tossed up, and it fell to my Adjutant to give
the word.
“We then left the room, and walked to a
garden at some distance from the house. It was
near seven, and the moon shone brightly. We
stood about eight yards distant, and agreed not
to turn round before we fired, but to continue
facing each other. Harris gave the word. Both
our fires were in very exact time, but neither
took effect.
“I walked up immediately to his Lordship, and
told him, that now I avowed the paper. His
Lordship paid me the highest encomiums on my
courage, and said, he would declare everywhere
that I am the noblest fellow God had ever made.
He then desired that we might now be good
75friends, and retire to the inn to drink a bottle
of claret together, which we did with great good
humour and much laugh.
“His Lordship afterwards went to Windsor,
Colonel Berkeley and my Adjutant to Winchester,
and I continue here until to-morrow morning,
waiting the return of my valet, to whom I have
sent a messenger. Berkeley told me he was
grieved at his Lordship’s passion, and admired my
coolness and courage beyond his farthest idea,—that
was his expression.
“I am, my Lord, &c.
“John Wilkes.”
According to our modern notions of duelling,
in this curious transaction one might be disposed
to think that neither of the parties was particularly
anxious to fight. That Wilkes should have
wished to sup in company with the person whom
he had offended, the night before the duel, would
lead one to fancy that he contemplated the possibility
of a reconciliation. On the other hand,
Lord Talbot, by his conduct, which was most
ungentlemanly and outrageous, seemed disposed
to bully Wilkes into a concession; and both
parties talked of killing, with a view to terrify
each other. From the well-known character of
Wilkes, no one could doubt his courage; but
his refusing to acknowledge himself the writer
of the offensive article, which he after the duel
76admitted to have been his, was a shallow act,
that nothing could have justified but the insulting
manner in which Lord Talbot put the
question to him; and most assuredly his Lordship
had the worst of the affair, since he was satisfied
with a shot returned, although Wilkes acknowledged
himself the writer of the insulting paragraph.
The frequency of the duels that occurred
in those days does not appear to have given
them, generally speaking, a character of much
delicacy or punctilious honour; and they seem to
have been the result of fashion more than of
feeling.
In 1763 Wilkes got involved in another duel,
with Mr. Martin, Secretary to the Treasury.
The North Briton, of which he was the editor,
with its usual acrimony against the members of
the administration, had introduced some characteristic
sketches, supposed to allude to Samuel
Martin, member of Parliament for Camelford,
and Secretary to the Treasury, and afterwards the
hero in Churchill’s poem, “The Duellist.” The
following was the offensive paragraph:—
“The secretary of a certain board, and a very
apt tool of ministerial persecution, who, with a
snout worthy of a Portuguese inquisitor, is hourly
looking out for carrion in office, to feed the maw
of the insatiable vulture, imo, etiam in senatum
venit, notat et designat unumquemque nostrûm, he
marks us, and all our innocent families, for beggary
77and ruin. Neither the tenderness of age,
nor the sacredness of sex, is spared by the cruel
Scot.”
In a further number notice is again taken “of
the most treacherous, base, selfish, mean, abject,
low-lived, and dirty fellow, that ever wriggled
himself into a secretaryship.”
In consequence of that paragraph, which Mr.
Martin applied to himself, he made use of very
insulting language in the House of Commons,
when speaking of the North Briton, upon which
Wilkes sent him the following letter;—
“Great George Street, Nov. 16, 1763.
“Sir,
“You complained yesterday before five hundred
gentlemen, that you had been stabbed in the
dark by the North Briton. But I believe you
were not so much in the dark as you affected and
chose to be. Was the complaint made before
so many gentlemen on purpose that they might
interpose? To cut off every pretence of this
kind, as to the author, I whisper in your ear, that
every passage of the North Briton in which you
have been named or alluded to, was written by
“Your humble servant,
“John Wilkes.”
To this letter Mr. Martin returned the following
answer:—
78“Arlington Street, Nov. 16, 1763.
“Sir,
“As I said in the House of Commons yesterday,
that the writer of the North Briton, who
had stabbed me in the dark, was a cowardly as
well as a malignant scoundrel, and your letter
of this morning’s date acknowledges that every
passage of the North Briton in which I have been
named, or even alluded to, was written by yourself,
I must take the liberty to repeat, that you
are a malignant and infamous scoundrel, and that
I desire to give you an opportunity of showing
me whether the epithet cowardly was rightly
applied or not. I desire that you may meet me
in Hyde Park immediately, with a brace of pistols
each, to determine our difference. I shall
go to the ring in Hyde Park, with my pistols,
so concealed that nobody may see them, and I
will wait in expectation of you one hour. As
I shall call on my way at your house to deliver
this letter, I propose to go from thence directly
to the ring in Hyde Park, from whence we may
proceed, if it be necessary, to any more private
place. And I mention that I shall wait an hour,
in order to give you the full time to meet me.
“I am, sir, your humble servant,
“Samuel Martin.”
When the parties met in Hyde Park, they
walked together a little while to avoid some company
79which seemed coming up to them. They
brought each a pair of pistols. When they were
alone, the first fire was from Mr. Martin’s pistol,
which missed Mr. Wilkes. The pistol in Mr.
Wilkes’s hand only flashed in the pan. The
gentlemen then each took one of the remaining
pistols. Mr. Wilkes missed, and the ball of Mr.
Martin’s pistol lodged in Mr. Wilkes’s belly.
He bled immediately very much. Mr. Martin
came up, and desired to give him all the assistance
in his power. Mr. Wilkes replied, that
Mr. Martin had behaved like a man of honour;
that he was killed; and insisted on Mr. Martin’s
making his immediate escape, adding, that no
person should know from him how the affair
happened. Upon this they parted. Mr. Wilkes
was carried home; but would not tell any circumstance
of the case, till he found it was perfectly
known. He only said to the surgeon, that
it was an affair of honour.
The day following, Mr. Wilkes, imagining himself
in great danger, returned to Mr. Martin his
letter, that no evidence might appear against him,
and insisted upon it, with his own relatives, that
in case of his death, no trouble should be given
to Mr. Martin, for he had behaved as a man
of honour.
The ball was extracted by Mr. Graves, a surgeon.
It had struck Mr. Wilkes’s coat-button,
entered his belly half an inch below the navel,
80and sunk obliquely on the right side towards the
groin; but it had not penetrated the cavity of
the abdomen. It was extracted behind.
When he was able to write, he sent notice by
letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons
of the condition of his health; and on Friday,
the 16th, the House made the following order:—“That
Dr. Heberden, physician, and Mr. Cæsar
Hawkins, one of His Majesty’s sergeant-surgeons,
be desired to attend John Wilkes, Esq., to observe
the progress of his cure; and that they,
together with Dr. Brocklesby and Mr. Graves, do
attend this House to report their opinion thereupon,
on the 19th of January next, in case the
said John Wilkes, Esq. be not then able to attend
in his place.”
The order being sent to Dr. Heberden, by order
of the Speaker, he sent it to Dr. Brocklesby, with
a letter, desiring to know when he might attend
Dr. Brocklesby to Mr. Wilkes. Dr. Brocklesby
sent the order of the House and Dr. Heberden’s
letter to Mr. Wilkes, who immediately showed
his delicacy of feeling on the subject by sending
a polite card to Dr. Heberden, saying, that he
was well satisfied with the attention and skill of
Dr. Brocklesby and Mr. Graves; that he did not
wish to see Dr. Heberden for some weeks. He
sent a similar card to Mr. Hawkins.[6] Mr. Martin
81immediately proceeded to Paris; and on Mr.
Wilkes’s arrival in that city, notes, and a friendly
visit, were exchanged between them.
Mr. Martin’s conduct in this transaction had
been highly honourable; but the public was so
much exasperated at the danger to which Wilkes
had been exposed, that no credit was given to
the spirit which his antagonist had displayed.
On the contrary, it was remarked, that Mr. Martin
had taken no notice of the objectionable
passage in the North Briton until about eight
months after the publication, and that in so
public and official a manner before the House, as
almost to demand an interference. He was also
accused of having during that period practised
every day at a target, Sundays not excepted; and
also with not having returned Mr. Wilkes’s letter
till a month after the duel, with a view, as it
was suggested, had Mr. Wilkes speedily recovered,
of making use of it in evidence of his being
concerned in the North Briton.
These were not the only instances of his life
being perilled as a political and party editor.
He had not been long in Paris, after his recovery,
when a Scotch captain, of the name of Charles
John Forbes, called him out, as the writer of
several articles in the North Briton against the
82dignity of Scotland. Wilkes pleaded other engagements
of the same nature, but expressed his
willingness to give him satisfaction as soon as
they were disposed of. The captain, in a wild
manner, insisted upon an immediate meeting;
but not being able to find a second, or any one
to vouch for his being a gentleman, Wilkes declined
accepting his request. This affair coming
to the ear of the police, the parties were put
upon their parole not to fight within the French
dominions. Mr. Wilkes, upon this, offered to
meet him in Flanders, or any country in Europe,
Asia, Africa, or America, excepting the French
territory. Soon after the return of Wilkes to
London, Captain Forbes appeared there, with a
view, as it was suspected, of fighting with him;
but the ministry, upon getting notice of the
arrival and intention of the Scotchman, very
prudently caused it to be intimated to him, that
his presence could not but be very disagreeable;
upon which the doughty champion of Caledonia
thought proper to leave the kingdom, and afterwards
entered the Portuguese service a desperate
adventurer.
In December 1763, another Scotchman, of the
name of Alexander Dunn, obtained admission
into Wilkes’s apartment; but being suspected of
a design to assassinate him, he was immediately
seized and searched, when a new large penknife
was found in his pocket; which circumstance,
83coupled with a declaration which he had been
heard to make, that he, and ten other sworn
Scotch accomplices, had determined to cut Mr.
Wilkes off, whatever might be the result, left
little doubt of his intention. The papers found
upon his person were laid before the House of
Commons; but it was found upon further examination,
that the man was deranged.
The duel of Wilkes with Lord Talbot was one
of the first that occurred in the beginning of the
reign of George III. Hostile meetings had now
assumed a different character. Swords were no
longer drawn in bagnios, taverns, and chocolate
houses, on the spur of the moment, and public
broils had ceased to become fashionable: since
the wearing of side-arms had ceased to be customary,
duels assumed a more regular and civilised
form. The desperate conduct of the “bloods”
and “bucks” of the day was no longer considered
a proof of gentlemanlike bearing, and a man
might be looked upon as fashionable without
being what was called a hell-fire rake. The violence
of party had now succeeded trifling dissentions
and tavern quarrels; and political differences
not unfrequently excited high feelings of animosity,
which could only be tempered in the
field: and in the following chapter we shall see
that duels were but of too frequent occurrence
during this momentous reign, a circumstance
which we shall endeavour to account for.
CHAPTER II — BETWEEN LORD KILMAURS AND A FRENCH OFFICER, May 1765. — BETWEEN LORD MILTON AND LORD POULETT, January 29, 1771. — BETWEEN RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN AND MR. MATTHEWS. — BETWEEN LORD TOWNSHEND AND THE EARL OF BELLAMONT, February 2, 1773. — BETWEEN MR. SCAWEN AND MR. FITZGERALD. September 1, 1773. — BETWEEN MR. WHATELY AND JOHN TEMPLE, ESQ., December 11, 1773. — BETWEEN CAPTAIN STONEY AND THE REV. MR. BATE. January 13, 1777. — BETWEEN COUNT RICE AND VISCOUNT DU BARRY. Bath, November 23, 1778. — BETWEEN A LIEUT.-COLONEL AND A LIEUTENANT OF MILITIA. August 25, 1779. — BETWEEN THE HON. CHAS. JAS. FOX AND MR. ADAM. November 30, 1779. — BETWEEN COUNSELLOR R—— AND ——. November, 1779. — BETWEEN THE EARL OF SHELBURNE AND COLONEL FULLARTON. March 22, 1780. — BETWEEN MR. DONOVAN AND CAPT. JAMES HANSON. April, 1780. — BETWEEN THE REV. MR. BATE AND MR. R——, A STUDENT OF THE LAW. September 7, 1780. — BETWEEN THE REV. MR. ALLEN AND L. DULANY, ESQ. June 26, 1782. — DUEL PREVENTED. March 9, 1783. — BETWEEN MR. RIDDELL AND MR. CUNNINGHAM. April 21, 1783. — BETWEEN CAPTAIN I—— AND COLONEL P——. June, 1783. — BETWEEN THE HON. COLONEL COSMO GORDON AND LIEUT.-COLONEL THOMAS. September 4, 1783. — BETWEEN MR. MONRO, OF THE 16TH REGIMENT OF DRAGOONS, AND MR. GREEN. October 17, 1783. — BETWEEN LIEUT. HARRISON AND M. H. VAN BERKENSHAM. October, 1783. — BETWEEN SIR J. LOWTHER AND SERGEANT BOLTON. April, 1784. — BETWEEN AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY AND A GERMAN OFFICER. August, 1784. — BETWEEN CAPTAIN BRISES AND CAPTAIN BULKLEY. February, 1785. — BETWEEN LIEUTENANT F—— AND MR. GORDON. March, 1785. — BETWEEN LORD MACARTNEY AND MR. SADLEIR. April, 1785. — BETWEEN THE EARL OF A—— AND MR. F—— M——. June 19, 1785. — BETWEEN COMTE DE GERSDORFF AND MONS. L. LE FAVRE. July, 1785. — BETWEEN LORD W. MURRAY AND MR. G. WAUGH. November, 1785. — BETWEEN LIEUT. GAMBLE AND LIEUT. MOLLISON. January, 1786. — BETWEEN LORD MACARTNEY AND MAJOR-GEN. STEWART. June 8, 1786. — BETWEEN COUNSELLOR HUTCHINSON AND LORD MOUNTMORRIS. May, 1787. — BETWEEN CHEVALIER LA B—— AND CAPTAIN S——. June, 1787. — BETWEEN SIR JOHN MACPHERSON AND MAJOR BROWNE. September 10, 1787. — BETWEEN HIS R. H. THE DUKE OF YORK AND COL. LENNOX. May, 1789. — BETWEEN CAPT. E. PELLEW AND LIEUT. I. M. NORTHEY. June, 1789. — BETWEEN CAPT. TONGUE AND CAPT. PATERSON. June 19, 1789. — BETWEEN COL. LENNOX AND THEOPHILUS SWIFT, ESQ. July 1, 1789. — BETWEEN J. P. CURRAN, ESQ., M.P., AND MAJOR HOBART.L April 1, 1790. — BETWEEN SIR GEORGE RAMSAY AND CAPTAIN MACRAE. Edinburgh, April 15, 1790. — BETWEEN MR. STEPHENS AND MR. ANDERSON. Margate, Sept. 21, 1790. — BETWEEN CAPT. H. ASTON AND LIEUT. FITZGERALD. June 25, 1790. — BETWEEN MR. GRAHAM AND MR. JULIUS. July 19, 1791. — BETWEEN MR. FRIZELL AND MR. CLARK. June, 1792. — BETWEEN MR. KEMBLE AND MR. AIKIN. March, 1792. — BETWEEN THE EARL OF LONSDALE AND CAPTAIN CUTHBERT, OF THE GUARDS. June 9, 1792. — BETWEEN LORD LAUDERDALE AND GENERAL ARNOLD. July 2, 1792. — BETWEEN MONS. CHAUVIGNY AND MONS. C. LAMETH. November 8, 1792. — BETWEEN MR. PUREFOY AND COLONEL ROPER. Maidstone, August 14, 1794. — BETWEEN MAJOR SWEETMAN AND CAPTAIN WATSON. January 12, 1796. — BETWEEN MR. RICHARD ENGLAND AND MR. ROWLLS. February 19, 1796. — BETWEEN LORD MALDEN AND THE DUKE OF NORFOLK. April 30, 1796. — BETWEEN LORD VALENTIA AND HENRY GAWLER, ESQ. June 28, 1796. — BETWEEN MR. WM. CARPENTER AND MR. JOHN PRIDE. Aug. 20, 1796. — BETWEEN LIEUT. FITZGERALD AND LIEUT. WARRINGTON. May 4, 1797. — BETWEEN CAPT. SMITH AND LIEUT. FRANCIS BUCKLEY. August 5, 1797. — BETWEEN COLONEL KING AND COLONEL FITZGERALD. October, 1797. — BETWEEN THE RIGHT HON. W. PITT AND G. TIERNEY, ESQ. May 21, 1798. — BETWEEN COL. HARVEY ASTON AND MAJOR ALLEN. December 23, 1798. — BETWEEN MESSRS. COOLAN AND MORCAN. Dublin, March 13, 1800. — BETWEEN J. CORRY, ESQ. AND —— NEWBURGH, ESQ. May 10, 1800. — BETWEEN MR. P. HAMILTON AND MR. G. I. EAKER. January, 1802. — BETWEEN WM. HUNTER, ESQ. AND MR. DAVID MITCHELL. August, 1802. — BETWEEN LIEUT. W——, R.N., AND CAPT. I——, OF THE ARMY. March, 1803. — BETWEEN LIEUT.-COLONEL MONTGOMERY AND CAPTAIN MACNAMARA. April 6, 1803. — BETWEEN LORD CAMELFORD AND CAPTAIN BEST. March, 1804. — BETWEEN ENSIGN BROWNE AND LIEUT. BUTLER. January 1, 1806. — BETWEEN MAJOR BROOKES AND COLONEL BOLTON. January 4, 1806. — BETWEEN LIEUT. TURRENS AND MR. FISHER. March 22, 1806. — BETWEEN MR. ROGERS AND MR. LONG. Dublin, May 3, 1806. — BETWEEN BARON HOMPESCH AND MR. RICHARDSON. Sept. 22, 1806. — BETWEEN SIR FRANCIS BURDETT AND MR. PAULL. May 5, 1807. — BETWEEN MAJOR CAMPBELL AND CAPTAIN BOYD. August 1808. — BETWEEN LORD PAGET AND THE HON. CAPT. CADOGAN. May, 1809. — BETWEEN LORD CASTLEREAGH AND MR. CANNING. Sept. 21, 1809. — BETWEEN MR. GEORGE PAYNE AND MR. CLARK. Sept. 6, 1810. — BETWEEN CAPT. BOARDMAN AND ENSIGN DE BETTON. March 4, 1811. — BETWEEN MR. COLCLOUGH AND MR. ALCOCK. — BETWEEN MR. HARRISON AND ——. May 9, 1811. — BETWEEN LIEUT. STEWART AND LIEUT. BAGNALL. October 7, 1812. — BETWEEN LIEUT. BLUNDELL AND MR. MAGUIRE. July 12, 1813. — BETWEEN MR. O’CONNELL AND MR. D’ESTERRE. February, 1815. — BETWEEN COLONEL QUENTIN AND COLONEL PALMER. February 9, 1815. — BETWEEN MR. —— AND MR. ——. Edinburgh, Feb. 18, 1815. — BETWEEN MAJOR HILLAS AND MR. THOMAS FENTON. — BETWEEN P. DILLON, ESQ., AND B. KANE, ESQ. Dublin, Feb. 21, 1816. — BETWEEN MR. ALLEY AND MR. ADOLPHUS. December 2, 1816. — BETWEEN MAJOR LOCKYER AND MR. SUTTON COCHRANE. Cowes, December 12, 1817. — BETWEEN MR. THEODORE O’CALLAGHAN AND LIEUTENANT BAILEY. Bow Street, January 13, 1818. — BETWEEN LIEUT. CARTWRIGHT AND LIEUT. MAXWELL. March, 1818. — BETWEEN VISCOUNT BELGRAVE AND SIR J. G. EGERTON. October 17, 1818. — BETWEEN CAPTAIN JOHNSTON, OF THE 64TH REGIMENT AND BENJAMIN T. BROWNE, SURGEON OF THE ERIE, AMERICAN SLOOP OF WAR. March, 1819. — BETWEEN MR. UNIACKE AND MR. BOWIE. August 1, 1819. — BETWEEN CAPTAIN PELLEW, OF THE LIFE GUARDS, AND LIEUTENANT WALSH. October 6, 1819.
84
Such was the frequent occurrence of duels in
this long reign, that one hundred and seventy-two
were fought (in which three hundred and forty-four
persons were concerned); sixty-nine individuals
were killed—in three of these fatal cases
neither of the combatants survived; ninety-six
were wounded, forty-eight of them desperately,
and forty-eight slightly; while one hundred and
seventy-nine escaped unhurt.
From this statement it will be seen, that rather
more than one fifth of the combatants lost their
lives, and that nearly one half received the bullets
of their antagonists. It also appears, that only
eighteen trials took place; that six of the arraigned
individuals were acquitted; seven found guilty of
manslaughter, and three of murder,—two of whom
were executed, and eight imprisoned during different
periods.
When we compare the frequency of duelling
during this period and subsequent reigns, and at
the same time consider how much more fatal
these meetings generally proved, we are naturally
85led to inquire into the causes of this material
difference and amelioration in the condition of
society. Desirable indeed would it be, if this
circumstance could be attributed to a better feeling
in the upper classes, and a just detestation
of a practice as absurd as it is inhuman; but it
is to be feared, that the influence of fashion here
had no inconsiderable share in the change of
manners. Though many men pre-eminent in
public estimation have sanctioned the practice
by their example; yet how few are they compared
with those of former times, where we find York,
Norfolk, Richmond, Bellamont, Exmouth, Talbot,
Townshend, Shelburne, Paget, Castlereagh,
Petersham, Pitt, Fox, Sheridan, Canning, Tierney,
and many others of rank and distinction!
May not this circumstance be also in some measure
attributed to the frequency of the virulent
discussions, which have become so frequent during
the constant struggles for power, when insults
becoming, one may say, of daily occurrence, are
rarely noticed? Has not the influence of the
increased number of newspapers, many of which
have been conducted with a degree of personal
animosity, and we must say, ungentlemanly vituperation,
rendered the use of offensive language
so general as to have become a matter of course
in political argument, and therefore rarely noticed,
except by still more abusive recrimination?
If such a latitude in degrading phraseology had
86been as generally prevalent in France, scarcely
an editor would be now living to vindicate his
excesses, by the satisfaction of pleading his antagonist’s
death; the lie, the blow, which would
once have required the fall of one of the parties,
is now only resented by another accusation of
falsehood, a second edition of a thrashing, or an
action at law.
Of late years, the most unwarrantable parliamentary
language has been apologized for, on
the plea of its not having been allusive to private
character, so that a legislator, or a minister,
may be considered a political scoundrel, but a
worthy individual member of society; guilty of
a falsehood in the house, but devoted to the
cause of truth beyond the purlieus of St. Stephen;
faithful to all his engagements with the
world, but a traitor to his country; for, after
all, what is the language of opposition, but a strenuous
endeavour to impugn an adversary’s veracity,
to show, that for mere lucre or the vanity
of possessing power and patronage, he betrays
the most sacred trust reposed in him by his
sovereign; that he hurries his country to perdition
for the selfish motive of personal aggrandisement,
and sacrifices the national weal for his
own benefit and that of his family and dependants?
can there be any insult offered to a man
more pungent, more degrading? The lie, the
blow, given in a moment of passionate ebullition,
87are trifling offences, when compared to such serious
charges, which, if substantiated, should not
only expose a man to universal contempt and detestation,
but to the most ignoble death. When
such impeachments are hourly, daily made, can
we expect much sensitiveness when reciprocal
abuse is bandied at the bar of the House, as
well as at the bar of courts of justice? Pleaders
consider themselves justifiable in using the bitterest,
the most unwarrantable language. They
dress for the character they perform in wig and
gown; and fancy that when they have doffed
their attributes, they withdraw from the stage,
and have merely performed their part in the great
drama of life. Then again, in the intemperate
language of opposition, how often does galling
necessity, and bitter disappointment in not obtaining
office (when its emoluments are required,
to keep the wolf from the postulant’s door),
prompt the orator? and many a time perhaps an
eloquent senator has drawn out the headings of
his speech, on the back of an attorney’s threatening
letter, and the evil day is ever put off with
the usual promise of speedy liquidation “when
the present people go out.”
Men, in a public sphere of life, are, to a certain
extent, public property. Their actions are exposed
to the scrutiny of the community at large.
A writer, however galled his acute vanity may
be, cannot consider the abuse lavished on his
88productions as a personal insult; and it is the
same with the politician,—the invectives poured
upon his public conduct are not esteemed as aspersions
on his private character. A falsehood is
considered an expedient evasion, an error; and
a personal invective, a mere ebullition of eloquence,
a bubbling over of the diplomatic cabinet,
an opposition caldron, as heterogeneous and
monstrous in its contents as that of the weird
sisters.
These observations are not intended to condemn
this philosophical view of the subject.
Were these excesses noticed at the pistol’s muzzle,
it would only be adding murder to corruption;
and, as society is constituted, when an electioneering
hustings may be oftentimes compared to
a stall at Billinsgate, a candidate who seeks to
vindicate what he is complacently pleased to call
his honour, must indeed be a Quixotic character,
when he in general conscientiously knows that
every syllable of his address to the voters is
void of veracity, and all his pledges futile and
false.
The frequent occurrence of duels, in former
times, may also be attributed to the mode of
living in days fortunately gone by. Hard drinking
is now rarely heard of; and when it was in
fashion, insults were often given under the influence
of liquor, and vindicated under the plea
of excitement from the preceding night’s excesses.
89In Ireland it was not uncommon for parties to sit
up carousing during the entire night preceding
the murderous meeting; and the break of day,
through the casement of the hall of revelry, was
the signal for departure to the field. One of the
greatest curses of intemperance is the extreme
susceptibility which it gives our pride and vanity;
and if there is any ground for the proverb, in
vino veritas, it may be attributed to the fact, that
under this potent influence we sometimes know
ourselves better than in our more sober hours.
The pangs of repentance are more bitter, although
they may be transient in these moments of excited
reflection, when the past, the present, and
the future are exaggerated in all their circumstances
by an imagination morbidly vivid. It
is then that we love, and hate, with all the
energy of our hearts; that all our evil passions,
and sometimes our good feelings, prevail; for
the miser, over his cups, may become generous;
the barbarous, humane; and the man who has
perpetrated the most reckless crimes, will weep
with apparent anguish over ideal woes. Were it
possible to ascertain the influence of intemperance
in the many duels that have been fought,
it would doubtless appear that many of these fatal
quarrels would never have taken place in a sober
society.
It is also to be observed, that duels, when of
constant recurrence, became the subject of general
90conversation, and duels, like suicide, bear a fashionably
contagious character, which spreads
widely in society, and then the most mistaken
of criminals fancies that he must also avenge
certain wrongs, or rid himself of an uncertain
life. The one feels a pleasure in killing a supposed
enemy, and the other seeks a riddance from
pain by killing himself. The one thinks that he
must establish a character of courage, not to be
despised by society, and the suicide bids farewell
to a society which he disgraces; whereas, neither
the one nor the other in these desperate acts
displays a particle of true courage.
In the present state of society, insults to women
are comparatively rare; and indeed, unless a
person, who in the slightest degree claims the
character of a gentleman, is labouring under the
brutalizing influence of liquor, it is scarcely possible
to imagine how he can so far forget every
manly attribute as to offend a being whom nature
has placed under our protection, and to whose assistance,
when in danger, we rush instinctively.
This cause of duelling is therefore seldom noticed.
Leaving off the wearing of swords, as I have
already observed, rendered bloody frays less frequent;
but at the same time, the adoption of
pistols gave a much more serious complexion to a
hostile meeting. It is true, that comparatively
few shots tell, but the wounds of fire-arms are
91in general more dangerous than those inflicted by
a rapier. Skill in fencing might be of considerable
advantage to a good swordsman; but it is
also a well-known fact, that a man who has science
in fencing, can not only parry a thrust, but
inflict a mortal wound on one less dexterous.
Moreover, when what was called the first blood
was drawn, however trifling the scratch, the seconds
generally interposed. It may be therefore
concluded, that as mankind is taught to think
soberly, the danger of a duel may deter many
from rashly running its chance.
In recording the many duels that took place
during this reign, several of them may appear
trivial, and not worthy of notice, yet, as the
history of duelling, as I have already said, may
be considered as the mirror of the manners and
prevalent ideas of the day, these circumstances,
however insignificant, are of importance, inasmuch
as they show both the progress and the
gradual decline of this detestable practice; they
will tend also to point out those cases where
the most punctilious should have been amply
satisfied with an apology, and where the seconds
were guilty of murder, by allowing their principals
to proceed to the fatal extremity of sending
life in pursuit of the phantom misnamed
Honour.
92
Although this meeting took place at Marseilles;
yet, as being one highly characteristic of the
times, it may be properly considered here.
Lord Kilmaurs was the eldest son of the Earl
of Glencarne, and was one of the best-natured
persons imaginable; but, unfortunately, was extremely
deaf. Being one evening at the playhouse,
he was talking rather loudly to the person
who sat next to him, as deaf people generally do.
This happened to give offence to a French officer,
who was in the neighbouring box, who called
out to his Lordship “Paix!” (silence); which
word the officer repeated two or three times
without its being heard, or of course attended
to. Upon which the Frenchman rose, and exclaimed,
with great violence in an angry tone of
voice, “Taisez-vous!” His Lordship this time
heard the insolent address; and observing the
supercilious air that accompanied it, replied, that
as the other had no right to command silence
there, he should show his utter contempt of his
insolent injunction by talking still louder, which
he accordingly did.
The French officer soon after left the box; and,
as his Lordship’s ill star would have it, he also
quitted his, and went into another, where the
same officer was, but, it is reported, without the
least thought of what had taken place, so much
93so indeed, that looking about him on entering the
box, he cast his eyes on the officer without recollecting
him. The indignant Frenchman ran up
to him, and asked him, what he meant by staring
him in the face. To which Lord Kilmaurs replied,
that he had a right to look at any one.
The officer indignantly replied, that he was not
to be treated in such a manner with impunity.
Without any further preamble he exclaimed,
“Come along!” and pulled his Lordship by the
arm out of the box, and in the middle of the
street struck him across the shoulder with his
naked sword. Upon which Lord Kilmaurs drew,
and made a pass or two; and before any one arrived
to part them, received the sword of his antagonist
in the pit of his stomach, whence it passed
through his right shoulder; on which they were
parted. They were immediately surrounded by
numberless spectators. At first his Lordship was
hardly sensible of his wound, but in a few moments
he dropped down speechless; in which
situation he must inevitably have been smothered
by the pressing on of the crowd, had not the Duke
de Pequigny brought a guard to keep them off.
Again, he ran the risk of being stifled with his
own blood, had not a surgeon, passing through
the crowd, cut his stock and the neck of his shirt,
and applied some drops to his nostrils. He
remained several hours speechless, with almost
every mortal symptom. These, however, passed
off, and in three days he was out of danger.
94The officer took post immediately into the Pope’s
dominions at Avignon, while a short detail of
the affair was sent to the British ambassador at
Paris, who settled the affair.
The same year (1765), a duel was fought between
two officers on Kennington Common,
when a Major A—— was desperately wounded
by a ball in the breast, which came out at his
side. His opponent effected his escape.
In 1769 a duel was fought in Ireland between
Henry Flood and James Agar, when the latter
was shot dead. An old quarrel had long subsisted
between them, and this mode of arranging
their differences was ultimately agreed upon.
Duels between dramatic performers are uncommon
occurrences. It is true, that there does
not exist a class of society more morbidly alive to
the unction of flattery than players; but they are
so accustomed to rudeness of behaviour amongst
each other, the green-room and stage familiarity
fully illustrating the old proverb, that insults
generally go, if not unheeded, at any rate, according
to the ideas of honour generally entertained,
unrevenged. In 1770, on the 17th November, a
meeting took place between George Garrick, the
brother of the celebrated David, and Mr. Baddeley,
both of Drury Lane. The trumpet of
fame had long accused George Garrick of being
95concerned in an intrigue with Baddeley’s wife,
till at last Baddeley, urged on by an intriguing
mischievous Jew, who was himself a great admirer
of the lady, was persuaded, that it became
him, as a man of parts, to demand satisfaction.
The parties very reluctantly met in
Hyde Park; when Baddeley discharged his pistol
without effect, and, indeed, it was reported, without
aim, as his arm was as unsteady as that of
Gil Blas in his first action with the robbers.
Garrick magnanimously fired his in the air. On
the arrival of Mrs. Baddeley, in a hackney-coach,
who, jumping out of the vehicle, threw herself
between the combatants in an imploring attitude,
exclaiming, “Spare him! spare him!” the tableau
was so effective that the parties embraced
each other, and the interlude was concluded by a
general reconciliation.
The cause of this duel was never well known.
However, the meeting took place behind Bedford
House. Lord John Cavendish was Lord Milton’s
second; and Captain Kelly, Lord Poulett’s.
When they had taken their ground. Lord Milton
desired Lord Poulett to fire first, which he did,
and the ball entered Lord Milton’s belly.
In 1772 a melancholy meeting took place between
96a Mr. M’Lean, of Gartmoor, in Scotland,
and a Mr. Cameron. An old grudge had existed
between them, when the latter gave M’Lean the
lie; a duel followed, and M’Lean was killed on
the spot. His mother, on hearing of the melancholy
event, was deprived of her reason, and a
Miss M’Leod, a young lady, to whom Mr. M’Lean
was soon to have been married, was seized with
fits, and died three days after.
When Mr. Sheridan became the avowed suitor
of Miss Linley, the celebrated vocal performer,
her father, the late composer, did not at first encourage
his suit, and he had many rivals to overcome
in his attempts to gain the lady’s affections.
His perseverance, however, increased with the
difficulties that presented themselves; and his
courage and resolution in vindicating Miss Linley’s
reputation from a calumnious report, which
had been basely thrown out against her, obtained
for him the fair prize for which he twice exposed
his life.
Mr. Matthews, a gentleman, then well known
in the fashionable circles at Bath, had caused a
paragraph to be inserted in a public paper at that
place, which tended to prejudice the character of
this young lady, and Mr. Sheridan immediately
97applied for redress to the publisher, who gave up
the writer’s name.
Mr. Matthews had, in the mean time, set out
for London, and was closely followed by Mr.
Sheridan. They met, and fought a duel with
swords, at a tavern in Henrietta-street, Covent-garden.
Mr. Sheridan’s second on the occasion
was his brother, Charles Francis, afterwards Secretary
at War in Ireland.
Great courage and skill were displayed on both
sides; but Mr. Sheridan having succeeded in disarming
his adversary, compelled him to sign a
formal retractation of the paragraph which had
been published.
Sheridan instantly returned to Bath; and
thinking, very properly, that as the insult had
been publicly given, the apology should have
equal notoriety, caused it to be inserted in the
same paper. Mr. Matthews soon heard of the
circumstance; and irritated at his defeat, as well
as at the use which his antagonist had made of
his apology, determined to call upon Mr. Sheridan
for satisfaction. A message was accordingly
sent, and a meeting agreed upon.
Mr. Sheridan would have been fully justified,
according to the most delicate punctilios of
honour, in declining the call; but he silenced all
the objections that were started by his friends,
and the parties met on Kingsdown.
The victory was desperately contested, and
98after a discharge of pistols, they fought with
swords. They were both wounded, and closing
with each other, fell on the ground, where they
continued to fight until they were separated.
They received several cuts and contusions in this
arduous struggle for life and honour, and a part
of Matthews’s sword was actually broken off in
Sheridan’s ear.
Miss Linley did not suffer the prowess of her
champion to remain long unrewarded, and accompanied
him on a matrimonial trip to the Continent.
The ceremony was again performed on
their return to England, with the consent of the
lady’s parents.
This afternoon, the long-subsisting difference
between Lord Townshend and the Earl of Bellamont
was finally decided in Marylebone Fields,
when the latter received a ball in the right side
of his belly, near the groin.
They were armed with small swords, and a case
of pistols; but it was agreed to use the latter
first. Lord Townshend fired first, which gave the
unfortunate wound, and Lord Bellamont discharged
his pistol immediately after, without
effect. The seconds were the Hon. Mr. Dillon
99for Lord Bellamont, and Lord Ligonier for Lord
Townshend.
Lord Bellamont was immediately taken up and
put into a chaise; but from the agony arising
from his wound, he could not bear the motion.
A chair was, therefore, immediately sent for to
carry him to his lodging, where, on his arrival,
he desired to be laid on his back. Mr. Bromfield
and other surgeons were immediately called in,
who endeavoured, but in vain, to extract the ball.
His lordship ultimately recovered after great suffering.
This day a duel was fought between Mr. Scawen
and Mr. Fitzgerald, near Lisle, in which
neither of the gentlemen received any hurt. Mr.
Fitzgerald fired two pistols, one by design and
one by accident. Mr. Scawen fired one in the
air, when making some slight apology for the
cause of the duel, the parties were reconciled, and
returned highly satisfied with the issue of the
affair.
A duel was fought in Hyde Park, between Mr.
Whately, brother of Mr. Whately, late Secretary
100to the Treasury, and John Temple, Esq., Lieutenant-Governor
of New Hampshire, when the
former was dangerously wounded.
The cause of quarrel was—the discovery of the
confidential letters written by Messrs. Hutchinson,
Oliver, Paxton, &c. &c., which were lately
laid before the Assembly at Boston, and have
been since published in most of the London
papers.
Soon after this duel was fought, the following
information was given to the public by Doctor
Franklin:—
“Finding that two gentlemen have been unfortunately
engaged in a duel about a transaction
and its circumstances, of which both of them are
totally ignorant and innocent, I think it incumbent
on me to declare (for the prevention of
further mischief, as far as such a declaration may
contribute to prevent it) that I alone am the person
who obtained, and transmitted to Boston, the
letters in question. Mr. Whately could not communicate
them, because they were never in his
possession; and, for the same reason, they could
not be taken from him by Mr. Temple. They
were not of the nature of private letters between
friends. They were written by public officers to
persons in public stations, on public affairs, and
intended to produce public measures. They were,
therefore, handed to other public persons, who
101might be influenced by them to produce those
measures. Their tendency was to incense the
mother-country against her colonies; and, by the
steps recommended, to widen the breach, which
they effected. The chief caution expressed with
regard to privacy was, to keep their contents from
the colony agents, who, the writers apprehended,
might return them, or copies of them, to America.
That apprehension was, it seems, well-founded;
for the first agent who laid his hands on them,
thought it his duty to transmit them to his constituents.
(Signed) “Benjamin Franklin,
“Agent for the House of Representatives
of the Massachussets Bay.”
A rencontre happened at the Adelphi Tavern,
in the Strand, between Captain Stoney and Mr.
Bate, editor of the Morning Post.
The cause of quarrel arose from some offensive
paragraphs that had appeared in the Morning
Post, highly reflecting on the character of Lady
Strathmore. After having discharged their pistols
at each other without effect, they drew their
swords; and Mr. Stoney received a wound in the
breast and arm, and Mr. Bate one in the thigh.
Mr. Bate’s sword bent, and slanted against the
captain’s breast-bone, of which Mr. Bate apprising
102him, Captain Stoney called to him to straighten
it; and, in the interim, while the sword was
under his foot for that purpose, the door was
burst open, or the death of one of the parties
would most certainly have ensued. On the Saturday
following Captain S. married the lady
whom he had thus defended at the hazard of his
own life.
On Saturday, the 17th inst., Count Rice and
Viscount du Barry, being together in the house
of the latter, a question arose between them about
which they disagreed; and in the heat of the
dispute, upon an assertion of Count Rice, Viscount
du Barry said, “Cela n’est pas vrai,” to
which Count Rice immediately observed, “You
probably do not observe the idea that expression
conveys in the language you speak in, and that it
admits but of one very disagreeable interpretation.”
Upon which the other replied, “You
may interpret it as you please.” This ungentlemanlike
treatment having provoked the resentment
of Count Rice, and Viscount du Barry
offering no apology, they immediately sent for
seconds, who did not quit them till they got to
Claverton Down, where they remained, together
with a surgeon, till daylight, when they took the
field, each armed with two pistols and a sword.
103The ground being marked out by the seconds,
the Viscount du Barry fired first, and lodged a
ball in Count Rice’s thigh, which penetrated as
far as the bone. Count Rice fired his pistol, and
wounded the Viscount in the breast. He went
back two or three steps, then came forward again,
and both at the same time presented their pistols
to each other. The pistols flashed together in
the pan, though one only was discharged. They
then threw away their pistols, and took to their
swords. When Count Rice had advanced within
a few yards of the Viscount, he saw him fall, and
heard him cry out, “Je vous demande ma vie.”
To which Count Rice answered, “Je vous la
donne.” But in a few seconds the Viscount fell
back and expired.
Count Rice was brought with difficulty to
Bath, being dangerously wounded. But he afterwards
recovered.
The coroner’s inquest sat on the Viscount’s
body; and after a mature examination of the
witnesses and the Viscount’s servant, brought in
their verdict “Manslaughter.”
A duel was fought at Coxheath between a
Lieutenant of militia and a Lieut.-Colonel, when
104the latter was shot in the left breast, and expired
immediately. The deceased had charged the lieutenant
with exciting his men to mutiny, of which
he was honourably acquitted by a court-martial.
Mr. Fox having in debate, one day in the preceding
week, animadverted, with some degree of
asperity, on a particular species of argument, frequently
made use of by the friends of ministers,
viz.:—“That bad as the ministry were, it was
not certain that the nation would be at all bettered
by taking their opponents”—a Mr. Adam,
who had made use of that argument in the same
debate, called on Mr. Fox, some days after, for an
explanation.
The following letters passed on the above occasion:—
“St. Alban’s Tavern, Saturday, 4 o’clock, Afternoon.
“Mr. Adam presents his compliments to Mr.
Fox, and begs leave to represent to him, that
upon considering again and again what had passed
between them last night, it is impossible for
him to have his character cleared to the public
without inserting the following paragraph in the
newspapers:—We have authority to assure the
public, that in a conversation that passed between
Mr. Fox and Mr. Adam, in consequence of the
debate in the House of Commons on Thursday last,
105Mr. Fox declared that however much his speech
may have been misrepresented, he did not mean
to throw any personal reflection upon Mr. Adam.
“Major Humberstone does me the honour of
delivering this to you, and will bring your answer.
“To the Hon. Charles James Fox.”
“Sir,
“I am very sorry it is utterly inconsistent with
my ideas of propriety, to authorise the putting
any thing into the newspapers, relative to a
speech which, in my opinion, required no explanation.
You, who heard the speech, must know,
that it did convey no personal reflection upon
you, unless you felt yourself in the predicament
upon which I animadverted. The account of my
speech in the newspapers is certainly incorrect,
and certainly unauthorised by me; and therefore,
with respect to them, I have nothing to say.
“Neither the conversation that passed at
Brookes’s, nor this letter, is of a secret nature;
and if you have any wish to relate the one, or
to show the other, you are perfectly at liberty so
to do.
I am, &c. &c.
“Chesterfield-street, half-past 2, Sunday, Nov. 28.
“To —— Adam, Esq.”
“Sir,
“As you must be sensible that the speech printed
in the newspapers reflects upon me personally,
and as it is from them only that the public can
106have their information, it is evident that, unless
that is contradicted by your authority in as public
a manner as it was given, my character must be
injured. Your refusal to do this entitles me to
presume that you approve of the manner in
which that speech has been given to the public,
and justifies me in demanding the only satisfaction
such an injury will admit of.
“Major Humberstone is empowered to settle all
particulars; and the sooner this affair is brought
to a conclusion, the more agreeable to me.
“I have the honour to be, &c. &c.
“To the Hon. Charles James Fox.”
In consequence of the above, the parties met,
according to agreement, at eight o’clock in the
morning. After the ground was measured out,
at the distance of fourteen paces, Mr. Adam desired
Mr. Fox to fire; to which Mr. Fox replied,
“Sir, I have no quarrel with you, do you fire.”
Mr. Adam then fired, and wounded Mr. Fox,
which, we believe, was not at all perceived by
Mr. Adam, as it was not distinctly seen by either
of ourselves. Mr. Fox then fired, without effect.
We then interfered, asking Mr. Adam if he was
satisfied. Mr. Adam replied, “Will Mr. Fox
declare he meant no personal attack upon my
character?” Upon which Mr. Fox said, this was
no place for apology, and desired him to go on.
Mr. Adam fired his second pistol without effect.
107Mr. Fox fired his remaining pistol in the air; and
then saying, as the affair was ended, he had no difficulty
in declaring, he meant no more personal
affront to Mr. Adam than he did to either of the
other gentlemen present. Mr. Adam replied, “Sir,
you have behaved like a man of honour.”
Mr. Fox then mentioned that he believed himself
wounded; and upon his opening his waistcoat
it was found it was so, but to all appearance
slightly. The parties then separated, and Mr.
Fox’s wound, on examination, was found not
likely to produce any dangerous consequences.[7]
A remarkable trial lately happened in the
Court of King’s Bench, in Ireland. A Counsellor
R— had fought a duel with a gentleman, and
killed him. He traversed the indictment, and
imagined the jury, as usual, would bring in their
verdict of “manslaughter.” But the barrister
found himself mistaken: they deemed the intentions
of two men going out, premeditatedly,
to fight, to be “malice aforethought;” and to the
astonishment of the Court, brought the prisoner
108in “guilty,”—Death. The judges desired them
to recommend him to the Bench as an object of
mercy. They did it with reluctance.
Mr. Fullarton, member for Plympton, and late
secretary to Lord Stormont, in his embassy to the
Court of France, complained to the House of the
ungentlemanlike behaviour of the Earl of Shelburne,
who, he said, with all the aristocratic insolence
that marks that nobleman’s character, had,
in effect, dared to say, that he and his regiment
were as ready to act against the liberties of England,
as against her enemies. This occasioned
some altercation between those who were the
friends of each party; but being generally
thought unparliamentary, it went at that time
no farther.
However, on the 22d of March the parties had
a meeting.
Lord Shelburne, with Lord Frederick Cavendish
for his second, and Mr. Fullarton, with
Lord Balcarras for his second, met at half-past
five in Hyde Park, March 22, 1780. Lord Balcarras
and Lord F. Cavendish proposed that both
parties should obey the seconds. Lord Shelburne
and Mr. Fullarton walked together, while Lord
109Balcarras and Lord F. Cavendish adjusted all
ceremonials, and fixed on pistols as the proper
weapons. When they came to the ground, Lord
Shelburne told them that his pistols were already
loaded, and offered to draw them, which was rejected
by Lord Balcarras and Colonel Fullarton;
upon which Lord Balcarras loaded Colonel Fullarton’s
pistols. The seconds having agreed that
twelve paces was a proper distance, the parties
took their ground. Colonel Fullarton desired
Lord Shelburne to fire, which his Lordship declined;
and Colonel Fullarton was ordered by
the seconds to fire. He fired and missed. Lord
Shelburne returned it, and missed. Mr. Fullarton
then fired his second pistol, and hit Lord
Shelburne in the right groin, which his Lordship
signified; upon which every body ran up, and the
seconds interfered. Lord F. Cavendish offered
to take the pistol from Lord Shelburne; but his
Lordship refused to deliver it up, saying, “I
have not fired that pistol.” Mr. Fullarton returned
immediately to his ground, which he had
left with a view of assisting his Lordship, and
repeatedly desired his Lordship to fire at him.
Lord Shelburne said, “Sure, sir, you do not think
I would fire my pistol at you;” and fired it in
the air. The parties and their seconds joined together.
Lord Balcarras asked Lord Shelburne
if he had any difficulty in declaring he meant
nothing personal to Colonel Fullarton. His Lordship
110replied, “You know it has taken another
course; this is no time for explanation.” His
Lordship then said to Colonel Fullarton, “Although
I am wounded, I am able to go on if you
feel any resentment.” Colonel Fullarton said,
“He hoped he was incapable of harbouring such
a sentiment.” Lord F. Cavendish declared, that,
from the character he had heard of Colonel Fullarton,
he believed so. Colonel Fullarton said,
“As your Lordship is wounded, and has fired in
the air, it is impossible for me to go on.”
Lord Balcarras and Lord F. Cavendish immediately
declared, “That the parties had ended
the affair by behaving as men of the strictest
honour.”
On hearing of the above affair, the following
message was sent from the City:—
“The Committee of Common Council for corresponding
with the committees appointed, or to
be appointed, by the several counties, cities, and
boroughs in this kingdom, anxious for the preservation
of the valuable life of so true a friend
of the people as the Earl of Shelburne, respectfully
inquire after his Lordship’s safety, highly
endangered in consequence of his upright and
spirited conduct in Parliament.
“By order of the Committee,
“W. Rix.”
“The Earl of Shelburne.”
111
At the assizes at Kingston, in Surrey, the trials
on the Crown side came on before the Hon. Mr.
Justice Gould, and a special jury, when Mr. Donovan
(who voluntarily surrendered himself) was
tried for having killed, in a duel, Captain James
Hanson. It appeared by a number of respectable
witnesses, that the deceased was entirely in fault,
and had forced Mr. Donovan to meet him in a
field near the Dog and Duck. It also appeared
that the only ground of quarrel between the
prisoner and the deceased was, that Mr. Donovan
interfered between Captain Hanson and another
person, and prevented their fighting; on which
Captain Hanson gave him very abusive language,
and insisted that “he would make him smell
powder.”
The deceased was wounded by a pistol bullet
in the belly, and lived about twenty-four hours
after. He declared to two eminent surgeons who
attended him, and to several other persons, that
Mr. Donovan behaved, during the action, and
after it, with the greatest honour, tenderness, and
concern. And he particularly desired that no
prosecution should be carried on against him, as
he himself was solely in fault, by an unprovoked
rashness of temper and heat of passion.
The learned Judge gave an excellent charge to
112the jury, and said, “Though he allowed that all
the circumstances were as favourable to the prisoner,
as in such a case could be; yet, as the idea
of honour was so often mentioned, he must say,
and inform the jury and the auditors, that it was
false honour in men to break the laws of God and
their country; that going out to fight a duel was,
in both parties, a deliberate resolution to commit
murder; and there could be no honour in so
savage a custom, which, however disguised in
words, is contrary to the principles and happiness
of society, and ought to be reprobated in every
well-regulated community.”
The jury, without going out of court, acquitted
Mr. Donovan of the murder, and found him
“guilty” of “manslaughter,” on the coroner’s inquest.
The Judge fined him ten pounds to the
King, which being paid in the court, he was immediately
discharged.
A duel was fought in Hyde Park, between the
Rev. Mr. Bate, of Surrey-street, and Mr. R——, a
student of the law, late of St. John’s College,
Cambridge.
The quarrel arose from some circumstances relating
to the conduct of the Morning Post, in
113which they were both engaged. The chance of
the first fire falling to Mr. Bate, he discharged his
pistol, and hit Mr. R—— in the fleshy part of the
right arm. The wound, however, was not sufficient
to incapacitate him from returning the fire,
which he did, but without effect.
The seconds now interfered, and the affair was
adjusted.
Died, in Park-street, Grosvenor-square, Lloyd
Dulany, Esq., a gentleman of a most respectable
character, and large property in Maryland.
His death is said to be occasioned by a wound
which he received on Tuesday evening last, in a
duel with the Rev. Mr. Allen, in Hyde Park.
The second of the former was —— Delancey, Esq.;
and of the latter, Robert Morris, Esq. He was
attended by Dr. Millman, and Messrs. Pott and
Adair. The magistrates of Bow-street having
advertised a reward of ten guineas each, for the
apprehension of the Rev. Mr. Allen, and Robert
Morris, Esq., they were, in consequence, apprehended,
and committed to Tothill-fields Bridewell.
July 6, 1782.
Yesterday the Rev. Mr. Allen surrendered himself
at the Sessions’ House, in the Old Bailey,
when he and Robert Morris, Esq., were indicted
for the “wilful murder” of Lloyd Dulany, Esq.
114Mr. Justice Buller, in his charge to the jury,
observed, that the case before them consisted of
two parts, law and fact. As to law, there is not,
nor ever was a doubt, that where two persons
meet together deliberately to fight a duel, and
one of them is killed, the other is guilty of
“murder,” and his second likewise. In respect
to the fact, he stated that the quarrel arose from
a circumstance of three years’ standing. A paragraph
called, “Characters of Principal Men in
Rebellion,” published in the Morning Post, June
29, 1779, referred to the first and fifth of July,
the same year, and now recognised by the prisoner
Allen, in a letter proved to be his handwriting,
avowing himself the author of those
characters, retorting the charge of “liar and assassin,”
upon the deceased; telling him he did not
mean to dispute with, but to punish him; and if
he (the deceased) harboured any resentment or
revenge, the bearer (Morris) would put him in
the way of securing its immediate execution.
This brought on sundry verbal messages, and at
last, on the 18th of June, a meeting of Mr. Dulany,
Mr. Delancey his second, and Mr. Morris;
from which they went to Mr. Wogden’s, gun-maker,
to get Mr. Allen’s pistols charged; and
about half-past nine in the evening, after measuring
eight yards, discharged their pistols, when
the deceased fell.
115Mr. Delancey said that Mr. Morris repeatedly
urged deferring the duel to the next day.
One Lydia Lepine deposed, that she saw the
prisoner Allen shooting at a mark, in a field near
Blackfriars’ Bridge, with pistols, between eleven
and twelve o’clock, on the 18th of June. Her
master and his son confirmed the fact; but could
not swear positively to the person. His Lordship
concluded with observing, that a mistaken
point of honour was not to bias the judges and
the jury in such a case.
The jury withdrew about twenty minutes, and
brought in a verdict, Allen, “Guilty of Manslaughter.”
Morris, “Not Guilty.” The Recorder
then, after a pathetic speech, pronounced
sentence on Mr. Allen, of one shilling fine, and to
be imprisoned six months in Newgate.
Bamber Gascoigne, Esq., and two ladies, proved
an alibi as to shooting at a mark; and they, as
well as Lords Bateman, Mountmorris, and several
other persons, gave Allen an excellent character.
Mr. Morris brought no witnesses.
Two officers of the army, with their seconds,
and a surgeon, met in a field near Kensington
Gravel Pits, to fight a duel; but were happily
prevented by the interposition of a clergyman,
116who lives in that neighbourhood, who happened
to be passing by as they alighted from their carriages,
and who suspecting their intention, interfered.
The polite and affectionate address of this
clergyman effected an honourable reconciliation.
A duel was fought between Mr. Riddell, of
the Horse Grenadiers, and Mr. Cunningham, of
the Scots Greys. Both these gentlemen belonged
formerly to the Scots Greys, and had differed at
play. Mr. Riddell had challenged Mr. Cunningham,
which challenge Mr. Cunningham had declined;
but many of the gentlemen of the Scots
Greys reviving, at intervals, that circumstance,
Mr. Cunningham found it necessary, for the full
restoration of his honour, that he should call upon
Mr. Riddell. This appeal, Mr. Riddell considering
as out of season, declined attending to, till
he had consulted his brother officers, who agreed
there was no obligation on him to answer Mr.
Cunningham.
This being their determination, Mr. Cunningham
resolved upon forcing him to the point; and
meeting him accidentally at Mr. Christie’s, their
agent, spat in his face. Mr. Riddell observed
that this being a fresh affront, he should take
notice of it, and took his departure. He then
117proceeded to make a few arrangements in his
affairs. But before he had completed them, he
received a billet from Mr. Cunningham, reminding
him of the affront which he had passed upon
him, and declaring his readiness to give him satisfaction.
This note coming while the wafer was
yet wet to the hands of Sir James Riddell, who
was under some apprehension of his son’s situation,
he opened it; and having read it, closed it,
without taking any other notice of its contents,
than providing, in consequence of it, the assistance
of several surgeons of the first ability. The
meeting was fixed. They were both punctual:
Mr. Riddell attended by Captain Topham, of the
Horse Grenadiers; and Mr. Cunningham, by Captain
Cunningham, of the 69th regiment of foot.
Eight paces were first measured by the seconds,
and afterwards the contending parties took their
ground. They tossed up for the first fire, which
Mr. Riddell won. Mr. Riddell fired, and shot
Mr. Cunningham under the right breast, the ball
passing, as is supposed, through the ribs, and
lodging on the left side near the back. The
moment Mr. Cunningham received the shot he
reeled, but did not fall. He opened his waistcoat,
and declared he was mortally wounded.
Mr. Riddell still remained on his ground, when
Mr. Cunningham, after a pause of two minutes,
declared he would not be taken off the field till
he had fired at his adversary. Mr. Cunningham
118then presented his pistol, and shot Mr. Riddell in
the groin; he immediately fell, and was carried
in a hackney-coach to Mr. Topham’s. The unhappy
man lingered until seven o’clock on Tuesday
morning, and then expired.
Wednesday, April 23.
The coroner’s inquest sat on the body of George
Riddell, Esq., who was killed in the rencontre, as
above related.
The jury sat four hours; and after a very
strict examination of the seconds, and a servant
of the deceased, brought in their verdict, “Manslaughter.”
On the 31st ult. a duel was fought near Bangor
Ferry, Caernarvonshire, between Captain I—— and
Colonel P——. In consequence of several disputes
which had happened relating to the Anglesea
militia, and a challenge given, some time ago, by
Captain I—— to Colonel P——, they were bound over
to preserve the peace for a year. That time
having expired, Captain I—— sent a message, that
he should be at the Ferry-house, at six o’clock,
on Saturday morning, attended by Captain M——.
The parties met. The seconds marked the ground
at twelve paces, and tossed up for the first fire,
which Colonel P—— gained. He fired, and shot
119Captain I—— in the right thigh, who strove to return
the fire, but his pistol missed. Captain I—— then
demanded a second shot; which not being
immediately complied with, he was unable to
bear longer on his thigh, and was carried off by
the assistance of the seconds.
At six this morning, the Hon. Colonel Cosmo
Gordon and Lieut.-Colonel Thomas met at the
Ring in Hyde Park, to fight a duel. It was
agreed upon by their seconds, that, after receiving
their pistols, they should advance, and fire when
they pleased. On arriving within about eight
yards of each other they presented, and drew
their triggers nearly at the same time, when only
the Colonel’s pistol went off. The Lieut.-Colonel
having adjusted his pistol, fired at the Colonel,
who received a severe contusion on the thigh.
Their second pistols were fired without effect,
and their friends called to reload them; after
which they again advanced to nearly the same
distance, and fired, when the Lieut.-Colonel fell,
having received a ball in his body. He received
immediate assistance from a surgeon, who attended
the Colonel in case of need, and who extracted
the ball on the field; the wound notwithstanding
proved mortal.
120
This morning, about seven o’clock, Mr. Monro,
of the 16th Regiment of Dragoons and Mr.
Green, with their seconds, met in a field near
Battersea Bridge, for the purpose of settling a
dispute which took place a few evenings ago.
They took their ground at the distance of about
six yards. They then fired three pistols each, the
last of which wounded Mr. Green in the side.
The seconds interfered, and asked Mr. Green if
he was satisfied. He said, “Not except Mr.
Monro made him a public apology.” “That,”
Mr. Monro said, “he now would not do.” Mr.
Green replied, “Then one of us must fall.” They
again took their ground, and fired each two
pistols more. One ball entered Mr. Monro’s
knee, and Mr. Green received a shot which has
since proved fatal, the ball entering a little above
the groin.
This afternoon a duel was fought behind the
Foundling Hospital, between Lieut. Harrison,
of the Marines, and M. Harman Van Berkensham,
an officer in the Dutch service. When,
after marking out the distance of eight paces, Mr.
121Berkensham fired first and missed. Lieut. Harrison’s
bullet grazed the cheek of his antagonist,
who insisted on firing again, which he did without
effect; and Lieut. Harrison fired his second
pistol into the air. The seconds interposed, the
parties were reconciled, and both went home good
friends.
A duel was fought in this month between Sir
James Lowther, and Sergeant Bolton, when three
pistols were discharged on each side, but no material
injury was done to either of the combatants;
and the seconds interposing, they were reconciled.
An officer in the navy, and a gentleman in the
German service, fought a duel with swords and
pistols, in a field near Bayswater. Four pistols
were discharged, one of which slightly wounded
the former in the left shoulder; but in the rencontre
with swords, the latter was run through
the thigh. A surgeon, who attended, stopped
the effusion of blood, which was great; and the
gentleman was taken to his apartments in Dean-street,
dangerously ill.
122This, it appears, was the second duel which these
gentlemen had fought. The first was in France,
where they were both desperately wounded. The
quarrel was a difference of opinion on the conduct
of General Burgoyne in the Hudson’s Bay expedition,
in which they both served.
A duel was fought between Captains Brises
and Bulkley. The first shot being won by the
latter, he fired, and narrowly missed his antagonist,
who discharged his pistol in the air; and the
seconds interposing, the affair ended in the field.
A duel was fought between Lieut. F——, son of
General F——, then quartered in the Old Barracks
at Chatham, and a gentleman of the name of
Gordon, who was on a visit to his brother, an
officer in the same barracks; when Mr. Gordon
was so desperately wounded in one of his legs
that amputation became necessary. The affair
originated in a quarrel at cards.
123
The duel between Lord Macartney and Mr.
Sadleir, which was at first thought unfounded,
appears to have been a serious business. They,
with their seconds, Mr. Davidson and Major
Grattan, took their ground about seven o’clock
in the morning, on the 24th of September, 1784.
The distance marked by the seconds was ten
paces. The lot to fire first fell to Mr. Sadleir;
who firing accordingly, the ball struck Lord
Macartney on the ribs of the left side, which was
not known to the seconds till after his Lordship
had likewise fired, but without effect. It had been
previously agreed between the seconds, if, after the
first fire, no material execution had been done,
to interpose their good offices to effect a reconciliation.
This they were about to do when it
was discovered that Lord Macartney had been
wounded. When the previous agreement was
mentioned to his Lordship, and he was asked his
sentiments, his answer was—“That he came there
to give Mr. Sadleir satisfaction, and he was still
ready to do so.” And Mr. Sadleir being told
that Lord Macartney was wounded, and that, in
the present circumstances, the affair could not
honourably be pursued any farther, he acquiesced,
and declared that he was satisfied. And thus the
affair ended.
124
This day a duel was fought, near Grosvenor-gate,
between the Right Hon. the Earl of A——,
of the kingdom of Ireland, and Mr. F—— M——, of
the same kingdom.
The affair happened from a punctilio of honour.
After they had taken their ground, both attempted
to fire at the same time; but his Lordship’s
pistol missing fire, and Mr. M——’s shot not taking
effect, the affair ended satisfactorily.
A challenge was circulated through Europe by
the public prints, from Comte de Gersdorff to
Mons. Louis Le Favre; the former of whom
offered a hundred louis d’ors to the latter, to bear
his charges to any place which he might appoint
for the meeting. To this challenge Mons. Le
Favre afterwards published the following answer:—
“Mons. Le Comte, ”Filbourg, April 28, 1785.
“I hasten to answer your circular letter inserted
in the public prints. Our interview, if you think
proper, shall be at B—— le D——. As I am in the
neighbourhood of the city, I do not want much
money to carry me thither; and I thank you sincerely
for the hundred louis which you offer me.
“I have the honour to be, &c., Le Favre.”
125The Comte in his replication pleads indisposition.
But the parties at length met; and there
never was such a farce of a fight. Their seconds
measured the ground at twenty-five paces. The
heroes took their stations, and fired a pistol or
two each. Their seconds commended their
bravery: the Comte forgave the Secretary, and
there was an end of the combat.
By the East India packet, advice was received
of a duel fought between Lord William Murray,
and Lieutenant Gilbert Waugh, of the 73rd Regiment,
on the 21st of October, 1784, in which the
latter was mortally wounded, and died three days
after, greatly regretted.
A duel was fought at Chatham Lines, between
Lieutenant Gamble and Lieutenant Mollison,
both of them of the Marines. No compromise
could be arranged by the seconds, and Lieutenant
Mollison firing first, hit his antagonist in the
upper part of his thigh. Lieutenant Gamble fell,
but suddenly starting up, as Mr. Mollison advanced
towards him, discharged his pistol, and
the ball shattered the humerus or upper bone of
126Mr. Mollison’s arm, a little above the elbow.
Here the seconds interposed, and the combatants
were taken into their quarters. Mr. Mollison’s
arm has since been amputated, and both the
gentlemen are now perfectly reconciled, and as
good friends as ever.
A duel was fought near Kensington, between
Lord Macartney and Major-General Stewart, of
which the following is an authentic account:—
The place and time of meeting having been
previously fixed, the parties arrived about half-past
four in the morning, and took their ground
at the distance of twelve short paces, measured
off by the seconds, who delivered to each one
pistol, keeping possession of the remaining arms.
General Stewart told Lord Macartney, he
doubted, as his Lordship was short-sighted, he
would not be able to see him. His Lordship
replied, “he did perfectly well.” When the
seconds had retired a little on one side, and as
the parties were about to level, General Stewart
observed to Lord Macartney, that his pistol was
not cocked. His Lordship thanked him, and
cocked. When they had levelled, General
Stewart said “he was ready.” His Lordship answered,
“he was likewise ready.” And they both
127fired within a few instants of each other. The
seconds observing Lord Macartney to be wounded,
stepped up to him, and declared the matter must
rest here. General Stewart said, “this is no
satisfaction;” and asked if his Lordship was not
able to fire another pistol. His Lordship replied,
“he would try with pleasure,” and urged Colonel
Fullarton to permit him to proceed. The
seconds, however, declared it was impossible, and
they would on no account allow it. General
Stewart said, “then I must defer it till another
occasion;” on which his Lordship answered, “if
that be the case, we had better proceed now. I
am here in consequence of a message from General
Stewart, who called upon me to give him
satisfaction in my private capacity, for offence
taken at my public conduct; and to evince that
personal safety is no consideration with me, I
have nothing personal: the General may proceed
as he thinks fit.” General Stewart said, “it was
his Lordship’s personal conduct to him that he
resented.”
The seconds then put an end to all further
conversation between the parties, neither of
whom had yet quitted his ground; General
Stewart, in consequence of his situation, having
been under the necessity, from the first, of putting
his back to a tree. The surgeons, Mr. Hunter
and Mr. Home, who were attending at a
little distance, were brought up by Colonel Fullarton.
128Colonel Gordon, in the mean time, assisted
his Lordship in taking off his coat, and requested
him to sit down, apprehending he might
be faint through loss of blood. Colonel Gordon
then left the ground, in company with General
Stewart, and an easy carriage was provided to
convey his Lordship home.
(Signed) W. Fullarton.
A. Gordon.
On the 28th ult. a duel took place between
Counsellor Hutchinson, third son to the Provost
of the University of Dublin, and Lord Mountmorris,
in consequence of some words spoken by
the latter in the House of Lords, on Monday, the
23rd of April, of which his Lordship refused to
give an explanation.
The parties met at Donnybrook; and the
seconds having measured the ground, both fired
at the same instant: when Lord Mountmorris
fell, in consequence of a wound under the arm,
and the seconds interposed to prevent farther
bloodshed.
129
About three in the morning, on the 10th, a
duel was fought between the Chevalier La B——, an
officer in the French service, and Captain S—— of
the 11th Regiment of Foot. The ground measured
was five paces; and the first shot that was
fired by Captain S—— took place on the Chevalier’s
breast, but was fortunately prevented from penetrating
by the intervention of his coat button;
on which he fired his pistol into the air. The
seconds interposed, and the combatants parted
friends. The expression for which Captain S——
called out the Chevalier was to this effect—that
the English army had more phlegm than spirit.
A duel took place in Hyde Park, between Sir
John Macpherson and Major Browne. The
parties met near Grosvenor-gate, about eleven
o’clock. The pistols were loaded on the ground,
and it was agreed they both should fire at the
same time. They did so. Sir John received the
Major’s second fire; but his own pistol missed
fire. Colonel Murray, second to Sir John, then
asked Major Roberts, who was second to Major
Browne, if his friend was satisfied. Major
Browne said he was satisfied that Sir John had
130behaved with great gallantry, and much like a
man of honour. But some further explanation
being required on the part of the Major, a third
shot was exchanged. And then both parties
quitting the ground, came up to each other, said a
few words, and parted with salutations of civility.
Dublin, January 31, 1788.
This day Robert Keon, Esq., was brought up
to the Court of King’s Bench, to receive sentence
for the murder of George Nugent Reynolds, Esq.
The circumstances of this murder were as
follow:—These two gentlemen went out to
fight a duel; and when Mr. Reynolds, previously
to coming to action, was in the act of saluting
Mr. Keon, with his hat in his hand, wishing him
a good morning, the latter fired his pistol, and
shot him through the head. Upon this Mr.
Plunket, Mr. Reynolds’s second, called out, “A
horrid murder!” On which Mr. Keon’s brother
replied, “If you don’t like it, take that,” and
snapped his pistol at Mr. Plunket, which luckily
did not go off. The jury found Mr. Keon
“guilty” in November last; but his counsel
moved an arrest of judgment, and pleaded several
errors in the different proceedings, to stop the
sentence. The Court, after the most solemn
arguments, over-ruled all the objections, and
passed sentence of death upon him, according to
the verdict, and he was executed on the sixteenth
of the following month.
131
On the 17th instant, a duel took place between
the Duke of York and Colonel Lennox. Lord
Rawdon was second to the Duke of York, and
the Earl of Winchilsea to Colonel Lennox.
The dispute originated in an expression of the
Duke of York, that “Colonel Lennox had heard
words spoken to him at Daubigny’s, to which no
gentleman ought to have submitted.” This observation
being repeated to Colonel Lennox, he
took the opportunity, while his Royal Highness
was on the parade to address him, desiring to
know what were the words which he submitted
to hear, and by whom they were spoken. To
this his Royal Highness gave no other answer
than by ordering him to his post. The parade
being over, his Royal Highness went into the
Orderly-room; and sending for the Colonel, intimated
to him, in the presence of all the officers,
that he desired to derive no protection from his
rank as a prince, and his station as commanding
officer; but that, when not on duty, he wore a
brown coat, and was ready, as a private gentleman,
to give the Colonel satisfaction.
After this declaration, Colonel Lennox wrote a
circular letter to every member of the club at
Daubigny’s, requesting to know whether such
words had been used to him, and appointing a
132particular day for an answer from each; their
silence to be considered as a declaration that no
such words could be recollected.
On the expiration of the term limited for an
answer to the circular letter, the Colonel sent a
written message to his Royal Highness to this
purport—that not being able to recollect any
occasion on which words had been spoken to him
at Daubigny’s, to which a gentleman ought not
to submit, he had taken the step which had
appeared to him most likely to gain information
of the words to which his Royal Highness had
alluded, and of the person who had used them;
that none of the members of the club had given
him information of any such insult being in their
knowledge; and therefore he expected, in justice
to his character, that his Royal Highness should
contradict the report as publicly as he had
stated it.
This letter was delivered to his Royal Highness
by the Earl of Winchilsea; when, the answer
returned not proving satisfactory, a message
was sent to his Royal Highness desiring a meeting,
and the time and place were settled that
evening.
The meeting took place on Wimbledon Common.
The Duke of York received Colonel
Lennox’s fire, but did not fire himself; the ball
from Colonel Lennox grazed his Royal Highness’s
curl.
133Some days after this Colonel Lennox made a
requisition to the Duke of York, as Colonel of the
Coldstream Regiment, that his Royal Highness
would permit a call of the officers of that corps,
in order that certain propositions touching his
conduct and situation might be submitted to
their consideration.
His Royal Highness informed the friend of Mr.
Lennox,—that he could not possibly oppose any
design which might tend to relieve Mr. Lennox
from his present embarrassment. The meeting
of this military convention was held at the
Orderly-room; and after much deliberation, adjourned
to the 1st of June; when, considerable
discussion having taken place, the convention
came to the following resolution:—“It is the
opinion of the Coldstream Regiment, that subsequent
to the 15th of May, the day of the
meeting at the Orderly-room, Lieut.-Colonel
Lennox has behaved with courage; but, from the
peculiar difficulty of his situation, not with judgment.”
Colonel Lennox soon after exchanged his company
in the Duke of York’s regiment, for the
commission of Lieut.-Colonel in the 35th Regiment
of Foot.
134
A duel was fought at Exeter, in consequence
of a previous dispute, between Captain Edward
Pellew of the navy, and Lieutenant I. M. Northey.
The former was attended to the field by Captain
Reynolds; the latter, by his brother, Thomas
Northey, Esq. The parties took their ground at
twelve paces; and a signal being given, they both
fired, when Lieutenant Northey’s ball passed
through his opponent’s coat. A second signal
being given, as agreed, both parties reserved their
fire. An explanation between the friends took
place, and the matter was settled to the satisfaction
and honour of all parties. To prevent misrepresentation,
the foregoing account is published
by the seconds.
A duel was fought between Captain Tongue,
of his Majesty’s 6th Regiment, and Captain Paterson,
in the East India Company’s military service,
in which Captain Tongue was wounded in
the side.
The cause of the quarrel originated in the
street. Captain Tongue acknowledged himself
the aggressor.
135
This evening, in consequence of some expressions
reflecting on the character of Lieut.-Colonel
Lennox, published in a pamphlet, with the name
of Theophilus Swift, Esq., Colonel Lennox called
on Mr. Swift, and demanded satisfaction.
They met in a field near the Uxbridge-road,
attended by Sir William Augustus Browne and
Lieut.-Colonel Phipps. Ten paces were measured
by the seconds; and it was agreed that
Lieut.-Colonel Lennox should fire first. The
parties having taken their ground, Colonel Lennox
asked if Mr. Swift was ready. On his answering
that he was, Colonel Lennox fired, and the ball
took place in the body of Mr. Swift, whose pistol,
on his receiving the wound, went off without
effect. The parties then quitted the ground.
It is but just to say, that both gentlemen behaved
with the utmost degree of coolness and
intrepidity. Mr. Swift has since recovered from
his wound.
A duel was fought in Luttrelstown, between
J. P. Curran, Esq., M.P., and Major Hobart, secretary
to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, occasioned
by some words spoken in Parliament.
136The meeting was at the Hermitage, one of
Lord Carhampton’s seats. Mr. Curran was attended
by Mr. Egan; Major Hobart, by Lord
Carhampton. Being put to their ground, and
having agreed to fire as they chose, Mr. Curran
fired first, without effect; whereupon Major Hobart
said, he hoped Mr. Curran was satisfied.
Mr. Egan then called out to Major Hobart that
he had not fired, as did Mr. Curran. The Major
advancing a step or two towards Mr. Curran, repeated
what he had said before. Mr. Curran replied,
“I am sorry, Sir, you have taken this advantage;
but you have made it impossible for
me not to be satisfied.”
A duel was fought yesterday, near this city.
The parties were Sir George Ramsay and Captain
Macrae. The circumstances are as follows:—
A servant of Sir George’s, keeping a chair at
the door of the Edinburgh Theatre, was ordered
by Captain Macrae to remove it. On his objecting,
some words ensued; and the fracas concluded
in Captain Macrae chastising the servant very
severely.
Meeting the next day with Sir George Ramsay,
he insisted on his dismissing the man from
his service. This was refused, on the ground,
137that whatever was the misconduct of the servant,
he had already received a sufficient punishment.
A challenge was the immediate consequence
of this refusal. The parties met on Musselborough
Links, Sir George Ramsay accompanied by Sir
William Maxwell, and Captain Macrae by Mr.
Hay.
The former fired first, but without effect; Captain
Macrae returned the fire, and lodged his ball
near the heart of his antagonist. Sir George languished
in much agony until Friday morning,
when he expired. He was a gentleman of the
most amiable character and disposition; and had
but lately married a beautiful young lady, the
sister of Lord Saltoun.
Captain Macrae and his second immediately
fled. The poor fellow, on whose account this
duel happened, no sooner heard of his master’s
fate than he fell into strong convulsions, and died
in the course of a few hours.
July, 1790.
On Monday, the High Court of Justiciary met
at Edinburgh, for the trial of James Macrae, of
Hollmains, indicted at the instance of the Hon.
Lady Ramsay, and Sir William Ramsay, of
Banff, Bart., and of his Majesty Advocate, for
the murder of the late Sir George Ramsay, Bart.,
on the 14th of April last. Mr. Macrae not having
appeared to stand trial, sentence of fugitation
(outlawry) was pronounced against him.
138
Yesterday a duel was fought at Kingsgate, between
Mr. Stephens, son of Philip Stephens, Esq.,
Secretary to the Admiralty, and a Mr. Anderson.
It originated in such a trifling circumstance as
a dispute about the shutting of a window in the
public rooms. The parties fired each a pistol
without effect; but at the second fire Mr. Anderson’s
ball entered between Mr. Stephens’s under
lip and chin; and passing to the jugular vein in the
neck, occasioned his almost instantaneous death.
Mr. Anderson was apprehended soon after; and
this day the coroner’s inquest sat on the body,
and brought in their verdict “manslaughter.”
The bill of indictment afterwards presented
against Mr. Anderson for murder, in his unhappy
meeting with Stephens, was unanimously thrown
out as frivolous and unfounded, by the grand jury
at Dover.
A duel was fought between Captain Harvey
Aston, and Lieutenant Fitzgerald of the 60th
Regiment of Foot. The cause of the dispute
happened at Ranelagh; but so long before the
challenge, that it was imagined all idea of hostility
had ceased. A field belonging to Chalk
139Lodge Farm, near Hampstead, was the chosen
spot, and break of day the time appointed. Lord
Charles Fitzroy was the second to Captain Aston,
and Mr. Hood was second to Lieutenant Fitzgerald.
Ten yards was the ground measured; and Mr.
Fitzgerald had the first fire. He rested his pistol
on the left arm, and took aim accordingly. The
ball took a direction so as to glance on Mr.
Aston’s wrist, and passed from thence under his
right cheek bone, and through the neck. On receiving
this wound, Captain Aston called to his
antagonist,—“Are you satisfied?” The answer returned
was, “I am satisfied.” Captain Aston
then retired from the ground, and was assisted to
his carriage. Happily the wound is not likely to
prove mortal.
An unfortunate rencontre took place this morning
upon Blackheath, between Mr. Graham, an
eminent special pleader, of the Temple, and Mr.
Julius, a pupil in the office of Messrs. Graham,
attorneys, of Lincoln’s Inn, who are brothers of
the former.
The parties had dined together at the house of
Mr. Black, the surveyor, upon Epping Forest,
on Sunday; and after dinner, having drunk
140freely, one of them expressing some free opinions
concerning religion!!! much abrupt language passed
between them. They were reconciled, however,
on that day, and returned to town in the
same carriage.
On Monday, they met again after dinner, at
the chambers of Mr. Graham, Lincoln’s Inn, the
brother of the deceased, where the dispute was
unfortunately renewed, though apparently without
malignity. No challenge was given that
night; but in the morning, the deceased called
upon Mr. Julius for an apology for some expression;
which being refused, they went out together,
Mr. Graham attended by Mr. Ellis, and
Mr. Julius by Mr. Maxwell. A pupil of an
eminent surgeon attended them to Blackheath,
where Mr. Graham fell by a shot which passed
almost through the lower part of the belly. He
was brought to town in a post-chaise, and the
exertions of the most eminent of the faculty were
in vain used for his relief; the ball having laid
open the femoral artery, and it being impossible
to stop the discharge of blood, he expired in the
afternoon of the next day.
Mr. Graham was a gentleman of considerable
eminence in his profession, and of an esteemed
character in private life.
Mr. Julius is the son of a very respectable
attorney at St. Kitt’s, and is said not to have been
the least to blame in this quarrel.
141
A duel was yesterday morning fought in Hyde
Park, between Mr. Frizell and Mr. Clark, both
students of the law. Mr. Montgomery was
second to Mr. Frizell, and Mr. Evans to Mr.
Clark.
On Thursday night, these four gentlemen were
in company at the Cecil-street Coffeehouse, where
Mr. Frizell lodged. They drank till one in the
morning, when Mr. Frizell declaring he could
drink no longer, Mr. Clark said, with some
warmth,—it was using his friends very ill, but
that it was not the first time he had behaved so;
for that at Chatham he had quarrelled with all
the officers, and particularly with his friend
Lieutenant Hixon, of the 14th Regiment, and
that he had the character of a fighting man.
Mr. Frizell replied,—that he did not mean to
give offence; but if anything that he had said,
could be so construed, he was ready to give Mr.
Clark satisfaction,—and then went to bed.
Mr. Clark insisted, that these words were a
direct challenge, and appealed to the other gentlemen,
who declared that they did not consider
them in that light. Mr. Clark, however, went
up to Mr. Frizell’s room, and insisted on his
meeting him in five minutes. Mr. Frizell immediately
dressed himself, and went down stairs,
142where he said, before all the parties, that if Mr.
Evans and Mr. Montgomery were of opinion that
he had been guilty of any improper conduct, he
would apologize for it to Mr. Clark. But that
gentleman said he would accept of no apology,
and insisted that he should meet him in Hyde
Park in an hour from the time,—three o’clock.
It was then settled that Mr. Evans and Mr.
Montgomery should be the seconds. And after
these gentlemen had in vain endeavoured to make
up the difference, Mr. Clark, accompanied by Mr.
Evans, went out for pistols. Mr. Clark procured
a brace, which he loaded, and observing that Mr.
Frizell had not got pistols, gave him one of his.
When they got to the ground, they stood at
the distance of ten yards, and tossed up for the
first fire, which was won by Mr. Clark, whose
ball penetrated Mr. Frizell’s collar-bone. He fell,
and as he was falling, his pistol went off. Mr.
Montgomery, not supposing him dead, ran for a
coach, to convey him to a surgeon’s; but on his
return found Mr. Frizell had expired. Mr. Clark
and Mr. Evans were standing by the body, and
were surrounded by some soldiers, who refused to
let them go until their sergeant came to them.
The sergeant (who had previously been to Knightsbridge
barracks, to consult his officer, Captain
Hill, what was to be done) presently appeared,
and set them at liberty; when the body was put
into a coach, into which they all got, and drove
143off. In Piccadilly, Mr. Clark and Mr. Evans got
out, and have not since been heard of.
Mr. Frizell and Mr. Clark were natives of Ireland,
as were the two seconds. They were all
young men. The coroner’s inquest has since sat
on the body of Mr. Frizell, and brought in their
verdict, “wilful murder.”
Contrary to dramatic custom, a duel was fought
in a field near Marylebone, between Mr. Kemble
and Mr. Aikin, of Drury-lane Theatre, in consequence
of a dispute respecting certain dramatical
arrangements which Mr. Aikin conceived to be
injurious to him.
Mr. Aikin discharged his pistol without effect,
and the parties were happily reconciled without
proceeding further. They had no seconds; but
Mr. Bannister, sen., attended as their common
friend, a circumstance that clearly showed how
little comedians are acquainted with the punctilios
of honour.
An affair of honour took place early this morning,
between the Earl of Lonsdale, and Captain
144Cuthbert of the Guards, which, after the discharge
of a brace of pistols on each side, terminated
without injury to either party. Lord Lonsdale’s
last shot would probably have been fatal if
the ball had not luckily struck a button of Captain
Cuthbert, which repelled it. The seconds
then interfered, and matters were amicably adjusted.
The circumstances which led to this
hazardous decision were as follows:—
Captain Cuthbert, in order to obviate all increasing
disturbance in Mount-street, had directed that
no carriage should be suffered to pass that way.
Lord Lonsdale, who came in his carriage to
Mount-street, was consequently obstructed; and
finding the impediment insuperable, his temper
was somewhat ruffled. Addressing himself,
therefore, to Captain Cuthbert, he exclaimed,
“You rascal, do you know that I am a peer of
the realm?” The Captain immediately replied,
“I don’t know that you are a peer; but I know
you are a scoundrel, for applying such a term to
an officer on duty; and I will make you answer
for it.” A meeting, of course, took place, and
concluded as stated.
145
Lord Lauderdale attended by the Right Hon.
Charles James Fox, and General Arnold with
Lord Hawke as his friend, had a meeting
near Kilburn Wells, to terminate a misunderstanding
which it was found impossible to conciliate.
Lord Lauderdale received the General’s fire
unhurt, when, his Lordship declining to return
the shot, the seconds retired for about ten
minutes, and the result was the finishing of the
affair. The noble Earl, upon being desired to
fire, observed that he did not come there to fire at
the General, nor could he retract the offensive expressions;
if General Arnold was not satisfied, he
might fire till he was. A like rencontre took
place a few days before between the noble Earl
and the Duke of Richmond.
This affair, which originated in a difference of
opinion, had been undecided for two years. It
appears that M. de Chauvigny, having learned
the arrival of his antagonist in this country, gave
him a meeting, and proposed to fight him, which
the latter assented to. The parties fought in a
field near the place of Mons. Lameth’s residence,
146and he was dangerously wounded in the belly.
The affair ended by both declaring themselves
satisfied, and giving their word of honour that
the matter was finally adjusted.
The seconds were, for Mons. Chauvigny, the
Duke de Pienne and the Count de Chabanc; and
for Mons. Lameth, the Duke d’Aiguillon and
Mr. Maselet.
At these assizes this day, Mr. Thomas Purefoy
was indicted for the “wilful murder” of Colonel
Roper in a duel, which took place on the 21st of
December, 1788. The interval which had occurred
between that time and the prosecution,
was not assignable to the prosecutor, as Mr. Purefoy
had, for the greater part of the time, been out
of the kingdom.
In 1787, Major Roper was commander-in-chief
of the island of St. Vincent, and Mr. Purefoy was
Ensign in the 66th Regiment. The latter having
obtained leave of absence, had a festive day with
some of the junior officers, in which they committed
such excesses as occasioned a complaint to
Major Roper, by whom the leave of absence was
recalled. The remonstrances of Mr. Purefoy
were made in such a style, as to induce Major
Roper to bring him to a court-martial. By their
verdict he was declared to have forfeited his commission;
147and this verdict was afterwards confirmed
by his Majesty. This was the origin of
the dispute, which had afterwards such a fatal
termination.
The evidence, particularly that of General
Stanwix, the second to Colonel Roper, was extremely
favourable to the prisoner; who being
called upon for his defence, said, that he had entertained
no malice against the deceased; he had
been led by a call of honour, or, more properly
speaking, driven by the tyranny of custom, to an
act, which in early life had embittered his existence;
but without which, he was taught to
believe that he should lose all the consideration
which society could afford. The last challenge,
he observed, had come from Colonel Roper; and,
as some expiation of his offence, he had already
suffered six years of exile, and nine months of
close confinement. The latter part of this address
was read from a written paper, by Mr.
Erskine, the feelings of Mr. Purefoy being such
as to overpower his utterance.
The prisoner called nine gentlemen to his character,
most of whom had known him from early
life. They all spoke to the general mildness of
his character, and the good-humoured ease and
aversion to quarrel which marked his general
deportment. After a charge by the Judge, Mr.
Baron Hotham, the jury, without hesitation, returned
their verdict “not guilty.”
148
In consequence of a dispute at the Opera
House, on Saturday evening, between Major
Sweetman, of the Independents, and Captain
Watson, of the 90th Regiment; these gentlemen,
attended by their seconds and surgeons, met
near Cobham.
The combatants were posted by the seconds at
the distance of ten yards; but Major Sweetman,
who was short-sighted, complaining that he could
not see clearly, Captain Watson called out to him
to advance till he was satisfied: he advanced to
within four yards, when both parties fired together.
Captain Watson’s ball went in at Major
Sweetman’s right breast and came out at his left;
he fell, and instantly expired. Captain Watson
was wounded in the upper part of the thigh, but
is in a fair way of recovery, the ball having been
extracted.
March 20, 1796.
This day came on at Kingston assizes, the trial
of Captain Brereton Watson, for the “murder”
of Major Sweetman in a duel, which took place
in January, at Cobham.
Captain Watson, still very ill of his wounds,
was carried on a sofa covered with black into
court. The surgeons refusing to be examined,
through fear of being implicated in the crime
149with which the prisoner was charged, the trial
was very short; and the result was, that Captain
Watson was acquitted.
Mr. Richard England was put to the bar at the
Old Bailey, charged with the “wilful murder” of
Mr. Rowlls, brewer, of Kingston, in a duel at
Cranford-bridge, June 18, 1784.
Lord Derby, the first witness, gave in evidence
that he was present at Ascot races. When in the
stand upon the race-course, he heard Mr. England
cautioning the gentlemen present not to bet
with the deceased, as he neither paid what he lost
nor what he borrowed. On which Mr. Rowlls
went up to him, called him rascal, or scoundrel,
and offered to strike him; when Mr. England
bid him stand off, or he would be obliged
to knock him down; saying, at the same time,
“We have interrupted the company sufficiently
here, and if you have anything further to say to
me, you know where I am to be found.” A further
altercation ensued; but his Lordship being at
the other end of the stand, did not distinctly hear
it, and then the parties retired. Lord Dartrey,
now Lord Cremorne, and his lady, with a gentleman,
were at the inn at the time the duel was
fought. They went into the garden and endeavoured
150to prevent the duel; several other persons
were collected in the garden. Mr. Rowlls desired
his Lordship and others not to interfere; and
on a second attempt of his Lordship to make
peace, Mr. Rowlls said, if they did not retire, he
must, though reluctantly, call them impertinent.
Mr. England at the same time stepped forward,
and took off his hat; he said, “Gentlemen, I
have been cruelly treated; I have been injured in
my honour and character; let reparation be made,
and I am ready to have done this moment.”
Lady Dartrey retired. His Lordship stood in
the bower of the garden until he saw Mr. Rowlls
fall. One or two witnesses were called, who
proved nothing material.
A paper, containing the prisoner’s defence,
being read, the Earl of Derby, Marquis of Hertford,
Mr. Whitbread, jun., Colonel Bishopp, and
other gentlemen, were called to his character.
They all spoke of him as a man of decent gentlemanly
deportment, who, instead of seeking
quarrels, was studious to avoid them. He had
been friendly to Englishmen while abroad, and
had rendered some service to the military at the
siege of Newport.
Mr. Justice Rooke summed up the evidence;
after which the jury retired for about three quarters
of an hour, when they returned a verdict of
“manslaughter.”
The prisoner having fled from the laws of his
151country for twelve years, the Court was disposed
to show no lenity. He was therefore sentenced
to pay a fine of one shilling, and to be imprisoned
in Newgate twelve months.
In consequence of a publication, addressed by
Lord Malden to the inhabitants of the borough
of Leominster, the Duke of Norfolk, accompanied
by Captain Wombwell, of the 1st West
York regiment of Militia, and Lord Malden, accompanied
by Captain Taylor, Aid-de-camp to
his Royal Highness the Duke of York, met on
Saturday morning, in a field beyond Paddington.
The parties having taken their ground, and the
word being given by one of the seconds, they
fired without effect. The seconds then thought
proper to offer their interference; and in consequence
of a conversation which passed while the
parties were on the ground, a reconciliation was
effected.
A duel was fought in a field within three miles
of Hamburgh, between Lord Valentia and Henry
Gawler, Esq. They left England with their
seconds and surgeons, for the express purpose of
152fighting. They fired together. Mr. Gawler’s
ball took place; it entered his Lordship’s breast
bone, and lodged near the neck. It was extracted
on the field; and he is considered to be out of
danger. Lord Valentia’s ball passed through Mr.
Gawler’s hat.
The affair between Mr. Gawler and Lady
Valentia was the subject of the dispute.
This morning a duel was fought in Hyde Park,
between Mr. William Carpenter and Mr. John
Pride, both Americans, in which Mr. Carpenter
received his antagonist’s ball in the side, which
penetrated nearly through his body; and, notwithstanding
it was immediately extracted, he
died soon after.
The coroner’s jury afterwards sat upon the
body, and brought in their verdict “wilful
murder.”
In consequence of a quarrel which happened
in the theatre at Plymouth, on the Friday evening
preceding, between Lieutenant Fitzgerald, of
the Marines, and Lieutenant Warrington, of the
25th Regiment, they met, accompanied by their
153seconds, to settle the business. They exchanged
shots without effect; but on the second fire Lieutenant
Fitzgerald’s ball wounded Lieutenant Warrington
in the side, after which the business terminated.
Killed in a duel with Captain Smith, of the
same regiment, Lieutenant Francis Buckley, of
the Loyal British Fencibles, in the island of
Jersey.
After exchanging several shots, the deceased
received his antagonist’s ball in his right side, and
died almost instantly.
The cause of this unfortunate affair is said to
have arisen from a quarrel between Capt. Smith
and the deceased; in which the former received a
blow from the latter, who imagined that very improper
language had been made use of towards
him.
He has left a wife and two infant children, a
brother (a lieutenant in the same regiment), and
aged parents, to lament his untimely fate.
About four weeks before, the Hon. Miss King,
who lived with her mother, Lady Kingsborough,
154eloped from Windsor. There were many circumstances
attending the elopement which led to
a suspicion of the person who had seduced her
from her duty.
Colonel Fitzgerald, who is married to a very
beautiful lady, and is second cousin to Miss King,
had been very attentive to her for some time;
and, it appears, had previously found means to
lead her astray. She was very young, being now
only sixteen years of age; and her habits of life
had been such as to leave her more uninformed
of the vicious habits of the world than happens
to most young people, even at that early age.
Colonel Fitzgerald was at length attacked by
her friends as being accessory to her elopement.
But he was at first extremely indignant, and
threatened to fight any person who should accuse
him. The afflicted parent, by the advice of
friends, had at length recourse to the newspapers;
and after having repeatedly advertised in vain for
her daughter, was induced to offer a reward of a
hundred guineas for her recovery. It was in consequence
of the reward offered, that a young
woman, daughter of the mistress of the house
where the young lady was concealed, in Clayton-street,
Kennington, discovered Miss King and
her seducer.
As soon as Lord Kingsborough, who was in
Ireland, heard of the fate of his daughter, he
came to England with his son, Colonel King;
155and the first step was to find out Colonel Fitzgerald,
which was not done without some difficulty,
as they were determined to call him to a
personal and severe account.
Lord Kingsborough wrote to his friend, Major
Wood, at Ashford, requesting his immediate
attendance in town. As soon as he arrived a
meeting was appointed, and a duel took place, of
which the following particulars are given by
Major Wood to a friend:—
“Fladong’s Hotel, Oxford-street, October 1, 1797.
“My dear Friend,
“I shall, without preface, enter at once into
the affair, which I mentioned to you was to take
place this morning, and ‘nothing extenuate, nor
set down aught in malice.’
“Agreeably to an arranged plan, I accompanied
Colonel King to a spot near the Magazine in the
Park. Colonel Fitzgerald we met at Grosvenor-gate,
unaccompanied by a friend, which, by the
way, he told me yesterday he feared he should
not be able to provide, in consequence of the
odium which was thrown upon his character; at
the same time observing, ‘That he was so sensible
of my honour, that he was perfectly satisfied
to meet Colonel King unattended by a friend.’
I decidedly refused any interference on his part,
informing him ‘That had not nearer relations of
the —— been on the spot, he would have seen
156me as a principal.’ He replied, ‘He would try
to procure a friend,’ and withdrew. I addressed
him this morning by ‘Where is your friend,
Sir?’ Answer (as well as I recollect), ‘I have
not been able to procure one; I rest assured that
you will act fairly.’ I then desired him to apply
to his surgeon, which he immediately did, who
refused appearing as a second, but said he would
be in view. Colonel King was equally desirous
to go on with the business. I consented. However,
I prevailed upon a surgeon, who accompanied
Dr. Browne, to be present as a witness
that all was fairly conducted. It was no common
business. I placed them at ten short paces’ distance
from each other. That distance I thought
too far. But I indulged a hope that Colonel
Fitzgerald, sensible of the vileness of his conduct,
would, after the first fire, have thrown himself
on Colonel King’s humanity. His conduct
was quite the reverse. In short, they exchanged
six shots without effect. King was cool and determined.
The other also was determined; and, to
appearance, obstinately bent on blood. After the
fourth shot he said something to me about giving
him advice as a friend. I told him I was no
friend of his, but that I was a friend to humanity,
that, if after what had passed, he possessed firmness
enough to acknowledge to Colonel King
that he was the vilest of human beings, and bear
without reply any language from Colonel King,
157however harsh, the present business, then, perhaps,
might come to a period. He consented to
acknowledge that he had acted wrongly, but no
farther. That was not enough. He now attempted
to address Colonel King, who prevented
him by saying,—that he was a d—d villain, and
that he would not listen to anything he had to
say.
“They proceeded. Colonel Fitzgerald’s powder
and balls were now expended. He desired
to have one of King’s pistols. To this I would
not consent, though pressed to do so by my
friends. Here ended this morning’s business.
We must meet again. It cannot end here. I
have only to add, that nothing could exceed the
firmness and propriety of Colonel King’s conduct,
through every stage of this business.
“I am, my dear friend, very truly yours,
“Robert Wood.
“P.S.—On leaving the ground Colonel Fitzgerald
agreed to meet Colonel King at the same
hour to-morrow.
“Both the colonels, the same day, were put under arrest.”
December 12, 1797.
Yesterday, intelligence was received in town
of the death of Colonel Fitzgerald, who was
lately guilty of a most shameful and dishonourable
act in the family of the present Earl of
158Kingston, by seducing a daughter of that much
respected nobleman, to whom he was allied, and
in whose family he had been a constant visitor.
He met with his death in the following manner:—
After the discovery of this unfortunate criminal
intercourse, which occurred in England, and
in consequence of which a duel had taken place
between the brother of the young lady (who is
now Lord Kingsborough) and the deceased
Colonel Fitzgerald, she was removed to the
country residence of her noble father, now the
Earl of Kingston, at Mitchelstown, near Kilworth,
in this kingdom. The deceased, feeling no remorse
for what he had done, in dishonouring
by the most artful stratagems an illustrious
family, had the audacity and hardihood to follow
the young lady to Ireland; it is supposed, with a
view to wrest her by violence from her parents;
and for this purpose, took lodgings at an inn in
Kilworth.
The Colonel had been there some days before
his arrival at Kilworth was known, or the object
of his expedition was discovered. He was observed
to walk out in the night, and conceal himself
in the day, and the servants at length noticed
him lurking about Mitchelstown House at unseasonable
hours. Intelligence having reached
Lord Kingsborough, who had had the duel with
the Colonel, and resolved to defeat his antagonist’s
159project, he left his father’s house, and went to
Kilworth, where, having inquired if that gentleman
was in the house, and being informed he
was, he went to the apartment he was directed
to, which the colonel lodged in. Lord Kingsborough
rapped at the door, requiring admittance.
The Colonel, knowing his voice, replied, that he
was locked in, and could not open the door; but
if he had anything to say to him, he would receive
it in writing under the door. This enraged
the young nobleman, and he forced open the
door, and running to a case of pistols in the room,
took one, and desired the Colonel to take the
other, and defend himself, as he was resolved to
have satisfaction for the scheme the deceased had
formed against his sister, and which he came to
this place to put into execution. On both seizing
the pistols, they grappled with each other, and
were struggling when the Earl of Kingston, who
had been apprised of his son’s departure in pursuit
of the Colonel, and quickly followed the
young lord, entered the room; and finding them
in the contest, and that his son must lose his life,
from the situation the deceased had him in, the
Earl fired upon the Colonel, not, we believe, with
an intention to kill him, though his aggravation
was great. The shot, however, took effect, and
the Colonel lost his life, but not lamented by any
one who has heard of his very dishonourable conduct
in this affair.
160When Miss King was taken by her father
from England, on account of her disgrace, it was
discovered, on her arrival in Dublin, that the
servant-maid, who accompanied her, favoured the
views of the seducer. On her consequent dismissal
from the service she returned to England,
and was the bearer of a private letter to Colonel
Fitzgerald, the contents of which were, it is said,
sufficient to induce the Colonel, even at the risk
of his life, to make an effort to regain the young
lady. But his finances not enabling him to
undertake the journey, he borrowed a sum of
money of an amiable woman, who ought to have
been most dear to him, under the pretence of
making a visit to Dorsetshire. Thus accommodated,
he set out for the sister kingdom, and
arrived at the village of Kilworth, near Mitchelstown,
the residence of the noble family, and the
place where the young lady was then kept, whose
conduct was then watched with particular vigilance.
In consequence of some expressions made use
of by Mr. Pitt in the House of Commons on the
Friday previous, Mr. Pitt, accompanied by Mr.
Rider, and Mr. Tierney, accompanied by Mr.
George Walpole, met at three o’clock in the
afternoon on Putney Heath.
161After some ineffectual attempts on the part of
the seconds to prevent farther proceedings, the
parties took their ground at the distance of twelve
paces. A case of pistols was fired at the same
moment without effect. A second case was also
fired in the same manner. Mr. Pitt having fired
his pistol in the air, the seconds jointly interfered,
and insisted that the matter should go no
farther, it being their decided opinion that sufficient
satisfaction had been given, and that the
business was ended with perfect honour to both
parties.
Died, at Madras, in consequence of a wound
which he received in a duel with Major Allen, of
which he languished about a week, Colonel
Harvey Aston.
He had been engaged in a similar affair of
honour, and on the same account, with Major
Picton only the day preceding that on which
he met Major Allen; but which was fortunately
terminated by each party firing in the air, and
a proper explanation taking place as to the offence.
162
This morning two students of our University,
Messrs. Coolan and Morcan, in consequence of an
unhappy dispute the preceding evening, met in
the fields near Harcourt-street. They fired at
the same moment, when Mr. Coolan’s shot unfortunately
took place in the temple of his antagonist,
and killed him on the spot. The surviving
combatant has been expelled the college, and
the two seconds have been rusticated.
Yesterday a meeting took place on Drumcondra-road,
between James Corry, Esq., of Lurgan-street,
and —— Newburgh, Esq., in consequence
of a dispute, and, as alleged, the provocation of
a blow given by the latter to the former. The
latter gentleman was accompanied on the ground
by Captain Warring of the 24th Dragoons, as his
second; the other by Mr. Weir, one of the attorneys.
Having taken their ground, the signal was
given to fire. Mr. Corry’s pistol went off without
effect, Mr. Newburgh’s missed fire. He was preparing
to fire it afterwards, when his second
called to him, telling him, the snap in duelling
163was considered as a fire. Both gentlemen were
then provided with other pistols, and received
the signal to fire again, which they did, and Mr.
Newburgh was shot through the heart and expired.
Mr. Newburgh was the only son of Broghill
Newburgh, of the county of Cavan, Esq. of an
ancient family, and heir-apparent to an estate of
5000l. per annum.
Mr. Corry is an élève of the Speaker of the
House of Commons, by whom he was placed in
the lucrative situation of clerk to the Linen
Board; a place which was enjoyed by his father,
who was also a great favourite with Mr. Foster.
The deceased was upwards of thirty years of
age, and married to the daughter of Mr. Camac,
an East India gentleman, with a fortune of
30,000l. He was related to Lord Enniskillen,
Lord Erne, Lord Gosford, and some other of the
best families in Ireland.
Mr. Corry, who is some years younger, is a
young gentleman of amiable and inoffensive
manners.
A duel took place at New York, between Mr.
P. Hamilton, son of General Alexander Hamilton,
and Mr. G. I. Eaker; in which, at the first
fire, Mr. Hamilton was shot through the body.
He languished until the next day, when he died.
164
At Savannah, William Hunter, Esq., fell in a
duel with Mr. David Mitchell. The dispute had
its origin in July last, in the county court, to the
jury of which Mr. Hunter was foreman, in a
cause in which Mitchell was counsel. During
the trial, it appearing to Mr. Hunter that the examination
of the evidence was not conducted by
the counsel with that impartiality which justice
required, he addressed a few words to the court,
when Mitchell got up and observed, that Mr.
Hunter was very officious on the occasion. Mr.
Hunter replied, that the officiousness of jurymen
was not to be compared with the impertinence of
some attorneys.
There the matter rested till August 9th, when
Mitchell attacked Mr. Hunter in the street with
a large bludgeon. Mr. Hunter, having nothing
to defend himself with, after receiving four
blows and attempting unsuccessfully, at the same
time, to seize Mitchell by the collar, said, “Mr.
Mitchell, I am unarmed; I must retreat unless
you lay aside your weapon.” Mr. Hunter then
retreated to Dr. Kollock’s for a cane, but could
not procure one. By this time some of the inhabitants
interfered. The same evening Mr.
Hunter sent Mr. Mitchell a challenge, who, after
much equivocation, accepted it. Dr. Kollock
165was Mr. Hunter’s second, Major B. Maxwell was
second to Mitchell. Mr. Hunter fired first, and
hit Mitchell on the hip; Mitchell missed Mr.
Hunter. Mr. Hunter’s second fire hit Mitchell
on the groin also, without penetrating the skin;
but Mr. Hunter received Mitchell’s second ball in
his right breast. Mr. Hunter immediately turned,
and exclaimed, “I am a dead man;” and as
Drs. Glenn and Kollock caught him in their arms
he asked for a glass of wine and expired.
This morning a most extraordinary duel took
place in Hyde Park, between Lieutenant W——,
of the navy, and Captain I——, of the army.
The antagonists arrived at the appointed place
within a few minutes of each other. Some dispute
arose respecting the distance, which the
friends of Lieutenant W—— insisted should not exceed
six paces; while the seconds of Captain I—— urged
strongly the rashness of so short a distance,
and insisted on its being extended. At
length the proposal of Lieutenant W——’s friends
was agreed to, and the parties fired per signal;
when Lieutenant W—— received the shot of his
adversary on the guard of his pistol, which tore
away the third and fourth fingers of his right
hand. The seconds then interfered to no purpose.
The son of Neptune, apparently callous to
166pain, wrapped his handkerchief round his hand,
and swore he had another, which never failed
him. Captain I—— called his friend aside, and told
him it was in vain to urge a reconciliation. They
again took their ground. On Lieutenant W—— receiving
the pistol in his left hand, he looked
steadfastly at Captain I—— for some time, then cast
his eyes to heaven, and said, “Forgive me.”
The parties fired as before, and both fell. Captain
I—— received the shot through his head, and
instantly expired. Lieutenant W—— received the
ball in his left breast, and immediately inquired
of his friend if Captain I——’s wound was mortal?
Being answered in the affirmative, he thanked
Heaven he had lived thus long. He requested
that a mourning ring, which was on his finger,
might be given to his sister; and that she might
be assured it was the happiest moment he ever
knew. He had scarcely finished the word when
a quantity of blood burst from his wound, and
he expired almost without a struggle.
The unfortunate young man was on the eve of
being married to a lady in Hampshire, to whom
for some time he had paid his addresses.
As Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery and Captain
Macnamara were riding in Hyde Park, each
167followed by a Newfoundland dog, the dogs
fought; and Colonel Montgomery, who did not
see that Captain Macnamara was near, after separating
the animals, exclaimed, “Whose dog is
that? I will knock him down!” To which
Captain Macnamara replied, “Have you the impudence
to say that you will knock my dog
down? You must first knock me down.” An
altercation ensued, an exchange of cards followed,
and an appointment to meet at 7 o’clock
in the evening, near Primrose Hill; the consequence
of which proved fatal. Captain Macnamara’s
ball entered the right side of Colonel
Montgomery’s chest, and taking a direction to
the left, most probably went through the heart;
he instantly fell, without uttering a word, but
rolled over two or three times as if in great
agony, and groaned. Colonel Montgomery’s ball
went through Captain Macnamara, entering on
the right side, just above the hip, and passing
through the left side, carrying part of the coat
and waistcoat in with it, taking part of his leather
breeches, and the hip button, away with it on the
other side.
Colonel Montgomery was carried by some of
the persons standing by, into Chalk Farm, where
he was laid on a bed, attended by Mr. Heaviside.
As they were carrying him, he attempted to
speak and spit; but the blood choked him. His
mouth foamed much; and in about five minutes
168after he was brought into the house, he expired
with a gentle sigh.
Captain Macnamara was a naval officer, who
has much distinguished himself in two or three
actions, as commander of the Cerberus frigate.
He had lately returned from the West Indies; and
his ship was, about two months ago, paid off at
Chatham. He was about thirty-six years of age;
a strong, bold, active man. He had fought two
or three duels before; and was remarkable at
Cork, for keeping the turbulent in awe.
Colonel Montgomery was Lieutenant-Colonel
of the ninth regiment of foot, son of Sir Robert
Montgomery, of Ireland, and half-brother of Mrs.
George Byng, and the Marchioness Townshend.
He was a remarkably handsome man, and he
had, also, fought bravely in the service of his
country. In the Dutch expedition, the Russians
being put to flight, his regiment was thrown into
confusion, and retreated, in consequence of the
Russians falling back upon them. At this time a
drummer was killed, and Colonel Montgomery
took up the drum, beating it to rally his men, he
himself standing alone. He succeeded in rallying
them, and at their head rendered essential
service. On several occasions, in Egypt and
Malta also, he had distinguished himself by his
courage and spirit. He was very intimate with
the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York.
The former shed tears on being apprised of the
melancholy end of his friend.
169Colonel Montgomery was well known in London
by the sobriquet of the Duke of Hamilton’s
double, from his studiously copying that nobleman’s
style of dress.
Captain Macnamara recovered of his wound,
and was tried for murder. His defence, which
was prepared by Lord Erskine (then Mr. Erskine),
stated:—“I am a captain of the British
navy. My character you can hear only from
others. But to maintain my character in that
situation I must be respected. When called upon
to lead others into honourable danger, I must not
be supposed to be a man who sought safety by
submitting to what custom has taught others to
consider as a disgrace. I am not presuming to
urge anything against the law of God, or of this
land. I know, that in the eyes of duty and
reason, obedience to the law, though against the
feelings of the world, is the first duty, and ought
to be the rule of action; but upon putting a
construction upon my motives, so as to ascertain
the quality of my actions, you will make allowance
for my situation. It is impossible to define
in terms the proper feelings of a gentleman; but
their existence has supported this country for
many ages, and she might perish if they were
lost.”
April 15.
Yesterday morning Mr. Heaviside, the surgeon,
was arrested by Townsend, under authority of a
170warrant from Sir Richard Ford, wherein he stands
charged with having been aiding and assisting
in the murder of Colonel Montgomery; and,
after undergoing a private examination before the
above magistrate, at Bow Street, he was fully
committed to Newgate for trial, at the ensuing
Old Bailey Sessions. Several witnesses were also
privately examined respecting the duel, and
bound over to appear on the trial.
Captain Macnamara was yesterday declared out
of danger, but was not yet well enough to be
removed.
The coroner’s inquest, on taking a view of the
body of Colonel Montgomery, brought in a verdict
of “manslaughter.” The remains were buried
in a vault in St. James’s Church.
The evidence being closed, the prisoner addressed
the jury in mitigation of his conduct.
Lords Hood, Nelson, Hotham, and Minto, and
a great number of highly respectable gentlemen
gave Captain Macnamara a most excellent character.
Mr. Justice Heath summed up the evidence,
and stated, that, from the pressure of the
evidence, and the prisoner’s own admission, the
jury must find a verdict of “manslaughter.”
They were, however, of a different opinion; for,
after retiring a quarter of an hour, they pronounced
a verdict of “Not guilty.”
171
A duel has been fought between Lord Camelford
and Captain Best, of the Royal Navy, in the
fields behind Holland House, near Kensington.
The meeting is said to have taken place in
consequence of a quarrel between the parties,
who were intimate friends, on the preceding
evening, at the Prince of Wales’s Coffee-house.
Lord Camelford and Mr. Best had been intimate
friends; both were young men of fashion,
and esteemed first-rate shots. The subject of
their quarrel was an abandoned woman, of the
name of Symons, who had formerly lived with
Mr. Best, but was then under the protection of
Lord Camelford. This woman meeting Mr. Best
at the Opera, made of him a request inconsistent
with their relative positions; and on being refused,
declared she would set Lord Camelford
upon him; and accordingly complained to his
Lordship, that Mr. Best had spoken disrespectfully
of him. This greatly incensed Lord Camelford;
and at the Prince of Wales’s Hotel, where
they generally dined, he went up to Mr. Best,
and said, loud enough to be heard by all present,
“I find that you have spoken of me in the
most unwarrantable terms.” Mr. Best mildly replied,
that he was utterly unconscious of deserving
such a charge; to which Lord Camelford
172answered, that he was not ignorant of what he
had said of him to Mrs. Symons, and pronounced
him to be a scoundrel, a liar, and a ruffian. Mr.
Best said, that these were expressions which admitted
but of one course, and a meeting was
immediately arranged for the next morning.
In the course of the evening Mr. Best conveyed
to Lord Camelford the strongest assurance
that the information he had received was unfounded;
and believing that his Lordship was
acting under a wrong impression, he would be
satisfied if the expressions he had made use of
were retracted. This Lord Camelford refused to
do. Attended by their respective friends, they
met the following morning at a coffee-house in
Oxford Street; and there again Mr. Best made
an effort to obtain a retractation of the insulting
words. He went up to his Lordship, and said,
“Camelford, we have been friends, and I know
the unsuspecting generosity of your nature; upon
my honour, you have been imposed upon by a
strumpet. Do not persist in expressions under
which one of us must fall.” Lord Camelford
answered, “Best, this is child’s play; the affair
must go on.”
And yet at this moment Lord Camelford had
in his heart acquitted Mr. Best, and had confidently
stated to his second, that he knew he was
in the wrong; that Best was a man of honour;
but that he could not bring himself to retract
173words which he had once used. In going to the
ground, he reiterated this statement to his second,
adding, that as he and Mr. Best were considered
the two best shots in England, one of them must
fall; but, whatever was the issue of the affair, he
begged him to bear testimony that he acquitted
Mr. Best of all blame. No remonstrance, however,
could induce him to withdraw the offensive
expression.
They were placed at fifteen paces from each
other. They fired together, and Lord Camelford
fell, to all appearance dead. In an instant, however,
he recovered the shock, so far as to exclaim,
“I am killed! but I acquit Best. I alone am to
blame.” He begged them to consult their safety.
When a labourer, who was working in an adjoining
garden, repaired to the spot, he found
Lord Camelford lying on his back, in the lower
part of the field, which was overflowed, to the
depth of several inches in water. Captain Best
and his friend had rode off directly after the shot
took effect, and the other gentleman followed
their example, immediately on the countryman’s
coming up, on the pretence of going for a
surgeon.
His Lordship was unwilling to be removed,
and it was with difficulty that those who came to
his assistance got him placed in a chair, and conveyed
to Mr. Ottey’s, at Little Holland House.
His adversary’s ball had penetrated his right
174breast, and was supposed to have passed through
the lungs and lodged in the back bone. When
questioned as to the names of the other gentlemen
who had accompanied him, he declined
giving any satisfaction on the subject.
Lord Camelford, by his will, peremptorily forbad
his relatives and friends from prosecuting his
antagonist, declaring that the combat was of his
own seeking. The day previous to his death
he added a codicil to his will, in which, after
stating that persons have in general a strong
attachment to the country which gave them
birth, and on their death-beds usually desire that
their remains may be conveyed to their native
land, however great the distance, to be interred,
he continued:—“I wish my body to be removed,
as soon as may be convenient, to a country far
distant, to a spot not near the haunts of men,
but where the surrounding scenery may smile
upon my remains.” The place he chose was situated
on the borders of the Lake of St. Lampierre,
in the canton of Berne, and three trees stood on
the particular spot. The centre tree he desired
might be taken up, and his body being there
deposited, immediately replaced. “Let no monument
or stone be placed over my grave.” At
the foot of this tree, his Lordship added, he formerly
passed many solitary hours, contemplating
the mutability of human affairs. As a compensation
to the proprietors of the spot, he left them
175one thousand pounds. He also requested his
relations not to go into mourning for him. At
the period of the duel Lord Camelford and Mr.
Best had a bet of two hundred pounds depending,
as to which of them was the better shot.
The following account of this pest to society
is given by one of his biographers; but we must
hope, for the sake of mankind, that the intellects
of this desperate nobleman were occasionally deranged:—
“His character was a curious mixture of much
that was virtuous and much that was vicious:
all in extremes. With chivalrous notions of punctilious
honour, and with an irascible temper,
which brought him into many broils, he was
warm in his affections, and almost unexampled in
his benevolence. Disdaining all luxuries, in his
own manner of life, he sought for opportunities
of dispensing his fortune in acts of genuine charity,
and conferred the most liberal favours with
a secrecy that ennobled the gift. He did not
distribute less than four thousand pounds per
annum in the purchase of commissions for gallant
young men, who had not the means of buying
them, and in the relief of decayed seamen and soldiers.
If many of his political proceedings were
characterised with imprudence, no one could
doubt they sprang from patriotism. He was a
man whose real character was to the world but
little known; his imperfections and his follies were
176often brought before the public, but his counterbalancing
virtues were seldom heard of. Though
too violent to those whom he imagined to have
wronged him, yet to his acquaintance he was
gentle, affable, and courteous; a stern adversary,
but the mildest and most generous of friends.
He was often the dupe of the designing and
crafty supplicant, but he was more often the
soother of real sorrow and unmerited woe.”
That such might have been his private character
is most decidedly to be hoped; but most
unquestionably, his public character rendered him
a nuisance to society, and whoever did rid the
world of such a murderous and (in matters of
blood) unprincipled ruffian, was entitled to
public thanks. Priding himself on his superiority
in pistol practice, he sought for quarrels on
every possible occasion. His dress, more especially
in uniform, was such as to excite remark
and observation, which he would gladly seize
upon to fight a duel. He was even known to
treat his horses in the streets of London in the
most cruel manner, for the mere purpose of drawing
forth some remonstrance or remark which he
could consider an insult, and justify a murder.
He died as he had lived, a blood-thirsty monster.
He sought to deprive a bosom friend of life,
although he was conscious of the falsehood of his
own assertions, solely because he wished to display
his superiority as a shot, and endeavoured to
177sacrifice a companion whom he esteemed, for a
miserable woman whom he despised. His previous
conduct towards Paterson was not justifiable
under any circumstances of discipline, since
he had the means of bringing him to condign
punishment without being his executioner.
He was attended in the course of the day by
Mr. Heaviside, Mr. Thomson, and Mr. Horne,
surgeons. A Mr. Nihell, or Nield, we understand,
was second to Captain Best, and the Hon.
Mr. Devereux was second to Lord Camelford.
The following is a further account of his death,
as it appeared in one of the papers of the day:—
March 12.
On Saturday evening this unfortunate nobleman
breathed his last. He sent for his solicitor,
Mr. Wilson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and made
his will the night after the accident; and maintained
the most perfect composure under his
sufferings to the last.
In the voluminous evidence adduced before
the coroner’s inquest, it was proved, that Lord
Camelford had declared,—that he was the aggressor,
that he forgave the gentleman who had
shot him, and that he hoped God would forgive
him too.
Mr. Hodgson, the coroner, in his address to the
jury, made the following observations:—
“It was evident the deceased had been killed
178by a shot fired at him by some person, of whose
identity the jury had no direct or admissible
proof. The laws of this country admitted of no
excuse for one man killing another in a private
duel. But, supposing the person who had slain
the deceased to be able, before a superior tribunal,
to offer circumstances and facts in palliation
of his offence, they could not have any weight in
this inquest. He had, strictly speaking, been
guilty of murder, and to that effect must necessarily
be the verdict of the jury. In the present
case, there was no doubt of the deceased having
been feloniously killed; but there was no evidence
who was the principal, or who were the
seconds. In point of fact, they were all equally
guilty; for, in the crime of murder, accessories
before the fact were considered as principals.
There was hardly a doubt that the expressions
and avowal of the deceased, so honourably made
in favour of his opponent, would, if the latter
were arraigned in a superior court, induce his
acquittal; but that was a consideration which
ought not to operate on the minds of those whom
he was addressing. Had the parties been in a
room; and upon a sudden quarrel had the deceased,
having given the first provocation, been
killed, it might have been justifiable homicide;
but, on the contrary, it appeared, they had deliberately
gone out to commit an unjustifiable act.
Had it been proved who the person was who
179fired the shot at the deceased, the jury would
have been bound to have returned a verdict of
“murder” against him, and those who were aiding
and abetting him; but, as the case stood,
they would only pronounce the verdict to which
he had alluded.
The jury unanimously returned a verdict of
“wilful murder, or felonious homicide, by some
person or persons unknown.”
This morning a meeting took place in a piece
of ground, in the parish of Basford, between Ensign
Browne, of the 36th regiment of Foot, and
Lieutenant Butler, of the 83d Regiment, on the
recruiting service, at Nottingham.
The parties fired together by signal, when, unfortunately,
Ensign Browne was shot through the
heart, and instantly expired, without uttering a
word.
Lieutenant Butler and the seconds immediately
withdrew. The body of the deceased was taken
to Basford church, by some persons who were attracted
to the spot by the report of the pistols;
and a verdict of “wilful murder” was returned
by the coroner’s jury who sat upon it.
Ensign Browne was a promising young officer,
of a very respectable family in Ireland, and had
180only just attained his seventeenth year. He and
Lieutenant Butler belonged, lately, to the same
regiment; but from a serious disagreement which
took place between them, the Commander-in-chief
ordered them to be placed in different
corps. On their meeting at Nottingham, however,
the embers of animosity rekindled, and the unhappy
result has proved the loss to society of a
valuable and much respected young member.
About a year ago a duel was to have taken
place at Liverpool, between Major Brookes and
Colonel Bolton, in consequence of a quarrel; but
the affair being known, they were bound over to
keep the peace for one year. After this, the animosity
between them increased daily, and each
reproached the other with having informed the
officers of justice of their intention to fight.
The time for which they were bound over to
keep the peace elapsed on Friday week, when a
challenge passed, and an immediate meeting was
determined upon. They met, and at the first fire
Major Brookes was killed on the spot. The
Colonel absconded.
181
A duel was fought on Galleywood Common,
near Chelmsford, Essex, between Lieutenant
Turrens and Mr. Fisher, both of the 6th regiment
of Foot, in barracks there. The parties with their
seconds arrived on the spot appointed for the
encounter at daybreak, when the preliminaries
having been settled, they took a short distance,
and turning round, fired at the same instant.
The Lieutenant received his antagonist’s ball in
the groin, and immediately fell. On which Mr.
Fisher went up and took him by the hand, expressing
much regret at the lamentable consequence
that had ensued, as, from the nature of
the wound, he was apprehensive it would prove
mortal.
Assistance having been procured, the wounded
gentleman was removed to a windmill at a short
distance, and as soon as possible, conveyed from
thence to his apartments in the barracks, where
every attention was rendered that his unfortunate
situation could require. The ball having lodged
on the side opposite to which it entered, was extracted
by Dr. Welch, at four o’clock the same
afternoon, but he expired between nine and ten
o’clock on Sunday morning. An inquisition was
taken by J. O. Parker, jun., Esq., coroner, on
view of the body, on Monday, and a verdict returned
182of “wilful murder” against Mr. Fisher
and the two seconds, one of whom is under
arrest. Mr. Fisher and the other have absconded.
This day a duel was fought in Foster Avenue,
between two young gentlemen of the Barrack-office,
in this city, and intimate friends, upon
occasion of a tavern quarrel the preceding
evening.
On the first fire, at the distance of eleven
paces, both parties fell; the one, Mr. Rogers,
received a ball through his heart, and of course
died instantly. The other, Mr. Long, was shot
through both his thighs, and is also since dead.
A duel was fought this morning between Baron
Hompesch and a Mr. Richardson, of Colchester,
in consequence of the Baron, who is near-sighted,
running against Mr. Richardson and two ladies
in the street. On the exchange of the third pistol
Mr. Richardson was shot through the body.
183
On account of a misunderstanding between Sir
Francis Burdett and Mr. Paull, a meeting took
place at nine o’clock this morning, near Wimbledon
Common. Mr. Paull conceiving his character
very injuriously reflected upon by Sir Francis,
despatched a challenge, late on Friday night, to
the Baronet, which being accepted, the parties
met early yesterday morning at Coombe Wood,
near Wimbledon Common.
They discharged two pistols each. The second
shot, fired by Mr. Paull, wounded Sir Francis
in the thigh; the second pistol, fired by Sir
Francis, wounded Mr. Paull in the leg. Sir
Francis returned home in the same carriage with
Mr. Paull.
The following is the truly amusing account
given of this duel by Mr. Bellenden Ker, and
shows the necessity of selecting proper seconds on
such occasions:—
On Saturday morning. May 5, about half-past
five o’clock, Sir Francis Burdett’s servant came to
me with a note from Sir Francis, desiring me to
come to him instantly to Wimbledon, with a pair
of pistols, as he had been called upon; but did
not say by whom. I could procure none, after
trying at two officers of the Guards, and at Manton’s,
184but found none fit for the purpose. It occurring
to me that going thus from place to place
for pistols, might at last be the occasion of bringing
on more notice than I wished, I determined
to proceed without them, thinking that those
who called upon him must have a pair at least;
and that if it was necessary they might serve
both parties. I arrived at Sir Francis Burdett’s
house, at Wimbledon, about eight o’clock, having
been obliged to wait more than two hours for a
chaise. He was gone on to the King’s Arms,
Kingston, having left a note for me to follow him
there in his carriage. On entering Kingston, I
saw Mr. Paull in a coach, accompanied by another
person, and a servant on the coach seat.
He called out to me on passing his carriage, and
said something that I did not distinctly hear;
but I think he advised me not to proceed into
the town, as the affair would be blown. I asked
him where the inn was, and went on.
As soon as I entered the room where Burdett
was sitting, a person appeared, who had followed
me. On his entrance I asked Burdett who he
was. He said it was Paull’s second. I then said,
“Whom have I the honour to address?” “My
name is Cooper.” “Do you know him, Burdett?”
“I have no doubt Mr. Paull has appointed a
proper person to meet me.” “Sir, sir, sir,” was
Mr. Cooper’s answer. I then said, as Burdett
desired, that we should immediately follow them,
185if they proceeded to Coombe Wood, which seemed
to be a proper place for meeting.
After Burdett had given me some letters and
memorandums for different friends, and explained
to me the subject of Mr. Paull’s demands, we
proceeded to the place appointed; where, ordering
the carriages to stop for us, we went into the
wood to a considerable distance. I fixed on a
proper spot. During our walk Mr. Paull frequently
addressed me on the subject of the quarrel.
He said he was sure I had not heard it
rightly stated, and wished me much to hear him.
I always replied that I had heard the whole from
my principal, and that I placed implicit confidence
in what he said; for if I could not have
done that, I should not have accompanied him
there; and that, from all I heard and read concerning
the matter, it was my decided opinion
that Burdett was the person most entitled to consider
himself as ill-used; but that, at all events,
an apology from him was out of all question, and
that I would rather see him shot than advise him
to so disgraceful an act. As Mr. Paull did not
seem to have at all placed his opinions, or case, in
the hands of his second, I found it in vain to talk to
him on the subject of an accommodation. After
we had stopped, I asked for the pistols, which
were produced by Mr. Cooper, who declared that
he had not expected things would have taken
this turn. I asked him if he expected I should
186advise, or Burdett would consent to disgrace
himself. I then told him we had been unable to
obtain pistols, and expected he would consent, as
well as Mr. Paull, that we should use one of
theirs. To this they both agreed. He (Mr.
Cooper) told me he did not know how to load
them; I showed him how, and directed him to
load Burdett’s while I loaded Mr. Paull’s. I
then asked him what distance he proposed them
to stand at; he said he knew nothing about the
matter, and left it to me. I measured out twelve
paces, and placed the principals at the extremities
of the space. I then directed him to give Sir
Francis a pistol, and I presented another to Mr.
Paull, at the same time assuring him, as I had
Mr. Cooper, that Sir Francis came there without
the slightest animosity against Mr. Paull; but
that he would fire at him as a mode of self-defence.
I said besides to Mr. Paull,—that I
hoped he was thoroughly convinced that the injury
he had received was of a nature not to be
satisfied with anything short of attempting the
life of my friend, and risking his own. He
replied,—he must do so, unless he had an
apology.
I then asked them if they would agree to fire
by a signal I would make by dropping my handkerchief?
They each did agree to it. I placed
myself about four yards on one side the centre of
the space between them; while Mr. Cooper, on
187giving the pistol to Sir Francis, retreated very
precipitately behind a tree at some distance. On
a signal being made, they fired together, but without
effect. I then took Mr. Paull’s pistol from
him, and said, “I hope, Sir, you are now satisfied.”
He said, “No; I must have an apology,
or proceed.” I said, “To talk of an apology is
absurd, and quite out of all question.” I then
reloaded the pistols, and gave them as before. I
again addressed Mr. Paull as I had at first. He
answered with warmth,—that he must have an
apology, or proceed; and called God to witness
that he was the most injured man on earth. Mr.
Cooper was then to make the signal; but he
stood so far out of the way, that Sir Francis
could not see him, although he had already called
to him during his retreat, and begged him not to
go so far off, and to come forward, or words to
that effect. At last I saw Sir Francis could not
see Mr. Cooper, nor his signal; and upon his
making it, I called out, “Fire,” to Sir Francis
as soon as I saw Mr. Paull raise his pistol. They
did so together, I believe, upon my uttering the
words.
I should observe, that while they were waiting
for the signal, I observed that Sir Francis held
his arm raised, and his pistol pointed towards
Mr. Paull. Knowing this was not with a view
of taking any unfair advantage, but the effect of
accident, I said, “Burdett, don’t take aim. I am
188sure you are not doing so; drop your arm, as
you see Mr. Paull has his pistol pointed downwards.”
Mr. Paull then asked me, why I advised
Sir Francis not to take aim. I said—anybody
might see that I could only mean for
him not to take aim, or prepare to do so, before
the signal, and from a desire to see that they were
upon equal terms. The consequences of the
second shots have been already described. After
speaking to each of them, I set off for the carriages.
Both were put into Mr. Paull’s. I went
on to Sir Francis Burdett’s house, to Lady Burdett
and his brother; and also to procure a
surgeon at Wimbledon.
During the transaction not one word passed
between me and Sir Francis, except what I said
about taking aim. Mr. Cooper has constantly
refused to sign any official account, to say where
he lives, or what is his situation; which also was
repeatedly requested of him before me; nor do I
at this moment know anything further about
him.
John Bellenden Ker.
Trial of Major Campbell, of the 21st Regiment.
Alexander Campbell, Brevet-Major in the
army, and a Captain in the 21st regiment, stood
indicted for the “wilful and felonious murder” of
189Alexander Boyd, a captain in the said regiment,
by shooting him, the said Alexander Boyd, with
a pistol bullet.
To support this indictment, the following witnesses
were produced:—
George Adams, who stated, that he had been
assistant surgeon in the 21st Regiment, since
April twelvemonths. He knew Major Campbell
and Captain Boyd. In the year 1807 they were
quartered in the barracks, in the county of Armagh
side of Newry. On the 23rd of the said
month, Captain Boyd died of a wound he received
by a pistol bullet, which penetrated the extremity
of the four false ribs, and lodged in the
cavity of the belly. On that day the regiment
was inspected by General Kerr; and, after the
inspection, the General and officers messed together.
About eight o’clock all the officers left the
mess, except Major Campbell, Captain Boyd, witness,
and a Lieutenant Hall. A conversation
then commenced by Major Campbell stating,
that General Kerr corrected him, that day, about
a particular mode of giving a word of command,
when he conceived he gave it right. He
mentioned how he gave it, and how the General
had corrected him. Captain Boyd remarked,
that neither was correct according to Dundas,
which was the King’s order. (This observation,
witness stated, was made in the usual mode of
conversation.) Major Campbell said, “it might
190not be according to the King’s order, but still he
conceived it was not incorrect.” Captain Boyd
still insisted it was not correct, according to the
King’s order. They argued this some time, till
Captain Boyd said,—he knew it as well as any
man. Major Campbell replied,—he doubted
that much. Captain Boyd at length said,—he
knew it better than he, let him take that as he
liked. Major Campbell then got up and said,
“Then, Captain Boyd, do you say that I am
wrong?” Captain Boyd replied, “I do. I know
I am right by the King’s orders.” Major Campbell
then quitted the room. Captain Boyd remained
after him for some time. He left the room
before the witness or Lieutenant Hall; but no
observation was made on his going, more than on
that of any other gentleman that had dined there.
The witness and Lieutenant Hall went out together
in a short time after. They went to a second
mess-room, and there Captain Boyd came and
spoke to them. (The conversation was not admitted
in evidence, as Major Campbell was not present
at it.) They then went out together, and the
witness left Captain Boyd at Lieutenant Dewar’s.
In about twenty minutes after he was called
upon to visit Captain Boyd. He went, and found
him on a chair vomiting. He examined his
wound, and found it a very dangerous one. He
survived it but eighteen hours. He stayed with
him till he died, during which time he got
gradually worse.
191On his cross-examination he stated, that there
was something irritating in Captain Boyd’s manner
of making the observation alluded to; so
much so, that he conceives Major Campbell could
not, consistently with his feelings, pass it over.
But, if a candid explanation had taken place, he
did not conceive the melancholy affair would
have occurred.
John Hoey stated, That he is mess-waiter for
the 21st Regiment, and was so then. He remembers
the night this affair took place. Knew
Major Campbell and Captain Boyd. He saw
Major Campbell that night in a room where he
was washing glasses. Major Campbell had quitted
the room ten or fifteen minutes. As Major
Campbell was coming up stairs, Captain Boyd
was leaving the mess-room, and they met on the
stair-head. Both went into the mess-waiter’s
room, and there remained ten or fifteen minutes,
when they separated. The prisoner, in about
twenty minutes, came again to the witness, and
desired him to go to Captain Boyd, and tell him
a gentleman wished to speak to him, if he pleased.
He accordingly went in search of Captain Boyd.
He found him on the parade ground. He delivered
the message, and Captain Boyd accompanied
him to the mess-room. No one was there.
The witness pointed to a little room off it, as the
room the gentleman was in. He then went to
the mess-kitchen, and in eight or ten minutes he
192heard the report of a shot; thought nothing of it
till he heard another. He then went to the mess-room,
and there saw Captain Boyd and Lieutenants
Hall and Macpherson. Captain Boyd was
sitting on a chair vomiting. Major Campbell
was gone, but in about ten or twelve minutes he
came to the room where the witness was washing
some glasses. Major Campbell asked for candles.
He got a pair, and brought them into the small
room. Major Campbell showed the witness the
corners of the room, in which each person stood,
which distance measured seven paces. He never
saw Major Campbell after, till a week ago, though
the witness never quitted the regiment, and retained
his employment.
John Macpherson stated, That he is Lieutenant
in the said regiment. Knew Major Campbell
and Captain Boyd. Recollects the day of
the duel. On the evening of that day, going up
stairs about nine o’clock, he heard, as he thought,
Major Campbell say, “On the word of a dying
man, is everything fair?” He got up before
Captain Boyd replied;—he said, “Campbell, you
have hurried me; you’re a bad man.” Witness
was in coloured clothes, and Major Campbell did
not know him, but said again, “Boyd, before this
stranger and Lieutenant Hall, was everything
fair?” Captain Boyd replied, “O my Campbell!
you know I wanted you to wait, and have
friends!” Major Campbell then said, “Good
193God! will you mention before these gentlemen,
was not everything fair? Did not you say, you
were ready?” Captain Boyd answered, “Yes;”
but in a moment after said, “Campbell, you are
a bad man.” Captain Boyd was helped into the
next room, and Major Campbell followed, much
agitated, and repeatedly said to Captain Boyd,
“that he (Boyd) was the happiest man of the
two.”—“I am,” said Major Campbell, “an unfortunate
man, but I hope not a bad one.” Major
Campbell asked Captain Boyd if he forgave him?
He stretched out his hand and said, “I forgive
you; I feel for you, and I am sure you do for
me.” Major Campbell then left the room.
Duncan Dewar, Adjutant of the regiment, who
was with Captain Boyd for some time after he
was wounded, was produced to show Captain
Boyd’s firm conviction that he would die in consequence
of that wound, in order to let in his
declaration then made as evidence. But Captain
Boyd not having (before him) expressed such a
conviction, that evidence failed. Surgeon W. J.
Nice was produced to the same point, and likewise
failed.
Colonel Paterson, of the 21st Regiment, was
produced to the same point, and also failed.
George Sutherland, Quarter-master of the same
regiment, was produced to the same point. He
stated that he saw him ten minutes before he
died. He was in bed, agitated with pain, in
194his senses, but rolling in the bed. He did not,
however, say to him that he thought he was
dying.
Upon this, a special verdict was directed to the
jury, to inquire whether Captain Boyd, ten minutes
before his death, and under the circumstances
stated, must or must not have known he
was dying. After some short deliberation, they
found for the affirmative of this issue (that he
must have known it). The declaration was then
admitted; but none could be proved within that
space, except his asking for Major Campbell, and
his saying, “Poor man, I am sorry for him.”
John Greenhill was produced merely to prove,
that Major Campbell had time to cool after the
altercation took place; inasmuch as he went
home, drank tea with his family, and gave him a
box to leave with Lieutenant Hall, before the
affair took place.
Here the prosecution closed.
The defence set up was merely and exclusively
the character of the prisoner, for humanity,
peaceable conduct, and proper behaviour. To
this, several officers of the highest rank were produced,
who vouched for it to the fullest extent;
namely, Colonel Paterson, of the 21st Regiment,
General Campbell, General Graham Sterling, Captain
Macpherson, Captain Menzies, and Colonel
Grey: many others were in attendance whom it
was unnecessary to produce.
195The learned judge charged the jury in the
most able manner, recapitulated the evidence,
and explained the law on the subject most fully
and clearly. The jury retired, and in about half
an hour brought in a verdict, “Guilty of murder;”
but recommended him to mercy, on the
score of character only.
He was sentenced to be executed on Monday,
but respited to Wednesday se’nnight.
And this respite was obtained by the greatest
exertion. Mrs. Campbell, who was tenderly attached
to her husband, having resolved to proceed
to London, and solicit the Royal mercy,
hastened to the sea-coast, but found that unexpected
circumstances threatened to frustrate
her fondest hopes. It blew a perfect hurricane,
and no reward could tempt the captain of any
vessel to venture to sea. While she was running
up and down the shore in a distracted state, she
met a few humble fishermen; and these poor
fellows no sooner heard the cause of her agony
than they offered her their service and their boat,
in which she actually crossed the channel. Her
noble companions not only refused to receive any
reward, but attended her to the coach-office, and
followed her several miles on the road, praying
God to bless her, and grant her success.
On arriving at Windsor with her petition it
was past eight o’clock, and the King had retired
to his apartment; but the Queen, compassionating
196the afflicted wife, presented the memorial that
night, and Mrs. Campbell received the kindest
attention from the whole of the Royal family.
The case was anxiously debated in the council;
but, after a full review of the circumstances, it
was finally resolved that the law should take its
course. Mrs. Campbell in the mean time proceeded
to Scotland, cheered with the hope of
obtaining, at least another respite. She reached
Ayr, her paternal home, on the very morning
that her husband’s corpse was brought thither to
be interred.
When Major Campbell heard that his fate was
decided, he prepared to meet death with the
fortitude of the soldier and the resignation of the
Christian. A change had come over the public
mind, and universal sorrow for his fate had taken
place of the prejudices which inaccurate reports
of the duel had produced. By a strange concurrence
of circumstances, his own regiment
mounted guard round the scaffold. A vast multitude
occupied every spot from which a view of
the place of execution could be obtained. The
crowd displayed the unusual show of all the
gentry from the neighbouring country, assembled
in deep mourning.
Precisely at noon Major Campbell appeared on
the platform, supported by his father-in-law.
Instantly the brave highlanders took off their
military bonnets; and with streaming eyes, joined
197in prayer for the spirit about to be parted from
its mortal tenement. The vast crowd stood uncovered
in solemn silence, so that the grating of
the falling drop was heard to the remotest extremity.
One groan from the thousands of spectators,
for an instant broke the profound silence,
and proclaimed that all was over! His body,
after having been suspended the usual time, was
put into a hearse in waiting, which left the town
immediately, escorted by Dr. Bowie, for Ayr in
Scotland, to be interred in the family vault.
Major Campbell, in his conversation with his
intimate friends, previously to surrendering himself,
had always said, that if he were convicted of
murder, he should suffer, as an example to duellists
in Ireland; but it was always his opinion
that a jury would not convict him of murder.
It has been erroneously stated, that the jury
recommended the deceased, merely from his universal
good character; but the jury recommended
him in consequence of the duel having been a
fair one; although, by the direction of the judge,
they were bound, on their oaths, to convict the
prisoner of murder. Major Campbell, previously
to his death, observed, that life was not an object
so dear to him, as the reflection was distressing,
that his children and family should bear the
stigma, that he was executed for murder.
Major Campbell made his escape from Ireland
after the duel, and lived with his family, under
198a fictitious name, for several months, at Chelsea
(the duel took place in June 1807); but his mind
became so uneasy that he at last determined to
surrender himself, be the result what it might.
His surrender, instead of being viewed as
the result of penitence and sorrow, was regarded
by too many as a mockery and a braving of
justice. Utterly false as such a view of the case
was, Campbell confirmed the prejudice against
him by incautiously declaring, that he was sure
the verdict could only be manslaughter. The
misrepresentation of these words, as has been
said, produced a strong effect on the minds of
the presbyterians of Armagh. His modest and
contrite deportment on his trial, and the excellent
character given him by officers of the
highest rank, went far towards turning the tide
in his favour; but one of the witnesses for the
defence is said to have exhibited a dictatorial
air, as if his simple word would, or ought to decide
the verdict; and this circumstance, it is
reported, had a fatal influence.
He was first cousin to the Earl of Breadalbane,
a man esteemed and beloved by all his friends.
It is superfluous to add, that Mrs. Campbell was
a most amiable woman. She had four infant
children.
The unfortunate catastrophe, which produced
such an awful result to Major Campbell, it is
hoped will not fail to leave a lesson to mankind
199of salutary influence. Both of the parties
were gentlemen, eminent in their profession, of
high character and honour, who had long lived
on terms of mutual friendship and esteem. The
unfortunate irritation of a moment, at once deprived
society of one of the best of men, and left
a widow and infant family to mourn their irreparable
loss. Retribution of the most awful kind
fell to the lot of the other; and his amiable widow
and helpless family were also involved in all the
distress which the human mind can conceive.
From the period of the unhappy event to the
closing of the tragic scene, Major Campbell
evinced the most heartfelt grief for what had
happened to his friend.
In order to prevent the appearance in the
papers of any mis-statement respecting the duel
which took place this morning between Lord
Paget and Captain Cadogan, we, the respective
friends of the parties, feel it incumbent on us to
submit the following as the correct statement of
the event as it occurred:—
In consequence of a challenge having been
received by Lord Paget from Captain Cadogan,
and every attempt to prevent a meeting having
failed, the parties, attended by their respective
friends, Captain Cadogan by Captain Mackenzie
200of the navy, Lord Paget by Lieut.-Colonel
Vivian of the 7th Light Dragoons, met, as
agreed, at seven o’clock, on Wimbledon Common.
The ground having been taken at twelve
paces distance, they were directed to fire together.
Captain Cadogan fired; Lord Paget’s pistol flashed.
This having been decided to go for fire, a
question arose whether Lord Paget had taken
aim, as if intending to hit his antagonist. Both
the seconds being clearly of opinion that such was
not his intention (although the degree of obliquity
he gave to the direction of the pistol was
such as to have been discovered only by particular
observation), Captain Mackenzie stated to
Captain Cadogan, that as it appeared to be Lord
Paget’s intention not to fire at him, he could not
admit of the affair proceeding any farther. Lieut.-Colonel
Vivian then asked Captain Cadogan
whether he had not himself observed that Lord
Paget had not aimed at him, to which he replied
in the affirmative. Captain Mackenzie then declared
his determination not to remain any longer
in the field, to witness any further act of hostility
on the part of Captain Cadogan. Captain Cadogan
replied, that of course his conduct must
be decided by his second; declaring, at the same
time, that he had come prepared for the fall of
one of the parties. On Captain Mackenzie and
Lieut.-Colonel Vivian making it known to Lord
Paget, that as he evidently did not intend to fire
201at Captain Cadogan, the affair could go no farther;
his lordship replied, “As such is your determination,
I have now no hesitation in saying, that
nothing could ever have induced me to add to
the injuries I have already done the family, by
firing at the brother of Lady Charlotte Wellesley.”
The parties then left the ground.
(Signed) R. H. Vivian.
George Charles Mackenzie.
The cause of the above duel is well known. It
arose from the seduction of the lady of the Hon.
Henry Wellesley (sister of Captain Cadogan) by
Lord Paget. Her husband afterwards gained
20,000l. damages in the Sheriff’s Court.
A duel took place early this morning between
Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, in which
the latter received a wound in the left thigh; but
happily it is not dangerous, being merely a flesh
wound.
The meeting took place at Putney Heath.
Lord Yarmouth seconded Lord Castlereagh, and
Mr. R. Ellis accompanied Mr. Canning. We
understand they fired by signal, at the distance of
ten yards. The first missed; and no explanation
taking place, they fired a second time, when Mr.
Canning was wounded in the left thigh, on the
202outer side of the bone; and thus the affair terminated.
He was put into a coach, and conveyed
to Gloucester Lodge, his newly purchased
seat at Brompton, and Lord Castlereagh returned
to his house in St. James’s-square.
The circumstances of this celebrated political
duel were the following:—“It had been long
reported that there were divisions in the Duke of
Portland’s cabinet, and that a change in some of
the highest offices of State would take place.
These divisions became public in the latter end
of September, when Lord Castlereagh, then Secretary
of War, sent a challenge to Mr. Canning,
who held the seals of the foreign office.
Lord Castlereagh’s complaint was, that, they
being both members of the cabinet, Mr. Canning
had applied clandestinely to get him removed
from office, for the purpose of bringing in the
Marquis Wellesley in his place. Before Easter, it
was affirmed, he made this application to the
Duke of Portland, and obtained his promise that
Lord Castlereagh should be removed from office.
“Notwithstanding this promise,” said Castlereagh
in his letter which accompanied the challenge,
“by which I consider you presumed it
unfit that I should remain charged with the
conduct of the war, and by which my situation
as a minister of the Crown was made dependent
on your will and pleasure, you continued to sit in
the same cabinet with me, and left me not only
203in the persuasion that I possessed your confidence
and support as a colleague, but allowed me, in
breach of every principle of good faith, both
public and private, to originate and proceed in a
new enterprise of the most arduous and important
nature (the Walcheren expedition), with your
apparent concurrence and ostensible approbation.
You are fully aware that, if my situation in the
Government had been disclosed to me, I could
not have submitted to remain one moment in
office, without the entire abandonment of private
honour and public duty. You knew I was deceived,
and you continued to deceive me.”
Without presuming to cast any unfavourable
imputation on the well-earned fame of Mr. Canning,
it cannot be denied that, if Lord Castlereagh’s
statement was correct, Mr. Canning’s
conduct was most unjustifiable, both on public
and on private grounds—both as a statesman and
a gentleman. If he considered Lord Castlereagh
as unfit to manage the important charge with
which he was entrusted, and indeed the Walcheren
expedition alluded to afforded a convincing
proof of the correctness of his opinion, it was
his duty not to remain with him in the cabinet
one single hour, if he could not overrule his
proposals; but to coincide in a project which he
condemned, and to continue to act in conjunction
with a minister whose removal he had urged
on the plea of incapacity, was an act most unaccountable
204on the part of Mr. Canning, and only
tends to show, that men placed in a public situation
will be guilty of acts which they would
scorn, as dishonourable, in the common affairs
of life.
A fatal duel was fought on Thursday morning
upon Wimbledon Common by two gentlemen.
At half-past five o’clock three post-chaises were
noticed passing over Putney Bridge, and at half-past
six, one of the chaises returned to the Red
Lion, at Putney, with a wounded gentleman,
of the name of Payne. Mr. Heaviside was sent
for, and found that a pistol ball had gone through
the groin. The unfortunate gentleman died at
half-past four o’clock the same afternoon.
Mr. George Payne was the younger son of the
late Renè Payne, Esq., and he left him his fortune,
to the amount of 14,000l. per annum. In
that settlement, the whole now goes to his eldest
son, except 500l. a year to his widow, and 10,000l.
to his younger children. Mr. Payne has left four
children by his wife, who was a Miss Gray.
The cause of the fatal duel is truly melancholy.
The challenge took place about ten days ago, at
Scarborough, but the quarrel was of a more distant
date. The orphan daughter of the late Dr.
Clark, of Newcastle, was the friend of Mrs.
205Payne, and a visitor in the family. An unfortunate
attachment took place between Mr. Payne
and Miss Clark, which transpiring, the irritated
feelings of the brother induced him to resent it.
Every means were tried by Mr. John Payne, the
elder brother of the deceased, to avert the catastrophe,
but in vain.
Mr. George Payne was most exemplary in all
his conduct through life, except in this fatal
attachment. He was a most liberal and a most
amiable man. He had whispered to his second,
Mr. Abbott, that he should not return Mr. Clark’s
fire, but the first shot was mortal. Mr. Clark has
effected his escape.
In consequence of a trifling quarrel, a duel
took place at Barbadoes, on the 15th of January,
between Captain Boardman, of the second battalion
of the 60th regiment, and Ensign De Betton,
of the Royal West India Rangers, in which, at
the first fire, the former was shot through the
heart, and instantly expired. The survivor immediately
escaped from the island.
In the preceding year, another fatal duel,
of a political or rather an electioneering nature,
took place at Wexford. Mr. John Colclough,
206of Trulom Abbey, had declared himself a candidate
for the representation of the county, which
he had sat for in the previous parliament. For
many years certain noblemen had monopolised the
representation of Wexford, and Mr. Colclough
determined on this occasion to put the sense of
the county to the proof, and therefore proposed Mr.
Sheridan as joint candidate with himself. With
these gentlemen Mr. Alcock, supported by the
interest of certain influential electors, contested
the county. The election commenced, the poll
proceeded, and the independent party was rapidly
advancing to success, when one of the most melancholy
events terminated the contest.
Several tenants of a person who had given his
interest to Alcock, absolutely refused to vote for
that gentleman, declaring that, at every risk, they
would support Colclough and the “great Sheridan.”
Mr. Alcock’s partisans ascribed the conduct
of these persons to seduction on the part of
Mr. Colclough. The latter protested in the most
solemn manner that he had not even solicited
their votes. Alcock insisted that they should not
vote for him. “How can I prevent them?”
naturally replied Mr. Colclough. After much
discussion Mr. Colclough was required to decline
the votes, or receive them at his peril. Of course
he disregarded this threat; open war ensued, and
it was determined, that before the opening of the
207next morning’s poll, the candidates should decide
by single combat the contested question.
Early on the following morning many hundred
people assembled to witness the affair, among
whom were several magistrates. Both candidates
were remarkably near-sighted, and Mr. Alcock
determined upon using spectacles. This was resisted
by the friends of Mr. Colclough, who would
not follow the example. The partisans of the
former, however, persevered, and he did wear
them. The ground at length was marked, and
the anxious crowd separated on either side, as
their party-feelings prompted them. The seconds
handed to each principal a couple of pistols, and
placing them about eight or nine steps asunder,
withdrew. A dead silence and a pause ensued—the
crowd stood in motionless suspense—the
combatants presented—the word was given—Mr.
Alcock fired first, and his former friend and
intimate companion fell shot through the heart,
his pistol exploding without effect.
The bystanders were almost petrified with
horror, when on a sudden a loud and horrible yell
burst simultaneously from every quarter of the
field. Alcock was hurried by his friends from
the ground; while those of Colclough raised the
body and mournfully bore it to his native home.
Within two hours after the fatal duel Mr. Alcock
was returned duly elected. At the next assizes he
208was tried for murder, before Baron Smith, who
openly declared against a capital conviction; and
the jury, without a moment’s hesitation, pronounced
a verdict of not guilty.
The acquitted duellist, however, suffered much
in mind, and ended his days in a great measure
deprived of his intellectual faculties. Two other
duels were fought on the same occasion, but with
little injury.
To this melancholy affair there was another sad
corollary: Miss Alcock had known Colclough for
a considerable time; she was an amiable and
sensible person—her brother’s absence, his trial,
and his subsequent depression deprived her also
of her reason, and in this state she did not long
survive the dreadful fate of her brother and his
friend.
A duel was fought on Tuesday morning, at
daybreak, in a field, about a mile and a half from
Totteridge, between two gentlemen, who had
alighted from post-chaises, at the King’s Arms
public-house, near the spot. In an hour after one
of the parties was brought in mortally wounded
in the abdomen, and he died in four hours after.
An inquest was held, and the fact of the duel being
proved by some husbandmen, a verdict of “wilful
murder” was returned. The body was owned
209after the inquest. The deceased was a Mr. Harrison,
a young man about twenty-two years of age.
A fatal duel took place on South Sea Common,
near Portsmouth. The parties were Lieutenant
Stewart and Lieutenant Bagnall, of the Royal
Marines, most intimate friends. The quarrel
arose concerning a female, with whom both were
intimate.
At the first shot Lieutenant Stewart’s pistol
missed fire. At the second discharge, his ball
entered behind Lieutenant Bagnall’s right shoulder.
Every attention was instantly procured, but
the wounded man expired on Saturday evening.
A duel was fought yesterday at Carisbrook
Castle, Isle of Wight, at half-past two o’clock,
P.M. agreeably to the written challenge of Lieut.
Blundell, between that gentleman and Mr. Maguire,
when at the second discharge of pistols, Mr.
B—— received a mortal wound, of which he died
two days after.
210
The following account is from the Freeman’s
Journal of the 2nd of February:—
A difference was adjusted yesterday, at Bishop’s
Court, county Kildare, which had agitated this
city for several days.
At a meeting at Capel-street, on the Saturday
previous to the late Aggregate Meeting, Mr.
O’Connell attended; and in illustrating some
matter which he was anxious to enforce, he
alluded, in a contemptuous manner, to the Corporation
of Dublin. “The beggarly Corporation
of Dublin” was, it seems, one of the epithets of
scorn used in reprobation of this act. Mr. J. N.
D’Esterre is a member of the Corporation; and
having seen this phrase, he addressed a letter on
the 25th (the day after the Aggregate Meeting)
to Mr. O’Connell requiring to know whether he
was fairly reported. On the day after Mr. O’Connell
sent an answer, in which he said he would
not avow nor disavow what had been reported in
the newspapers. But he added, that if Mr. D’Esterre
wrote to him to know his opinion of the
Common Council of Dublin, as a body, he could
easily satisfy him by saying, that no expression
which language could furnish was sufficient to
convey the sentiments of contempt he had for
that body. Mr. O’Connell, besides, requested that
211Mr. D’Esterre should consider his answer as forming
the close of the epistolary correspondence on
this topic.
On Friday, a letter was left in Merrion-square
for Mr. O’Connell, during his absence at the
courts. Its direction was different from the
former one which came from Mr. D’Esterre; and
Mr. James O’Connell, who had instructions to
open any communications that were directed to
his brother in his absence, ascertained the quarter
from whence it came. He sought merely for the
signature, and on perceiving it to be Mr. D’Esterre’s,
he immediately closed the letter, and
stated in a note to Mr. D’Esterre the circumstances
under which he opened it. He said he
was ignorant of its contents, not wishing, after
the request his brother had made on the day previous,
to know anything more of Mr. D’Esterre’s
epistolary messages. He added, that his brother
did not expect to hear a second time from
Mr. D’Esterre through the medium of a letter.
Things remained in this condition till Sunday
last. On that day Mr. James O’Connell received
a note from Mr. D’Esterre, containing disrespectful
observations on himself and his brother. Immediately
after the receipt of it, he sent his friend,
Captain O’Mullan, to Mr. D’Esterre to say, that
after he had adjusted his affair with his brother,
he would bring him to account for his conduct
to himself peculiarly. Captain O’Mullan at the
212same time intimated that Counsellor O’Connell
was astonished at not hearing, in what he conceived
the proper way, from Mr. D’Esterre.
Nothing farther happened on Sunday; and on
Monday morning Mr. Lidwell, who remained
here several days to be the friend of Mr. O’Connell,
though some members of his family were
seriously indisposed, left town for home, despairing
of any issue being put to the controversy.
Monday passed on; and on Tuesday considerable
sensation was created by a rumour that Mr. D’Esterre
was advised to go to the Four Courts to
offer Mr. O’Connell personal violence. Neither
of the parties came in contact. But it seems Mr.
D’Esterre was met on one of the quays by Mr.
Richard O’Gorman, who remonstrated with him,
by stating that he conceived he was pursuing a
very unusual sort of conduct. This occurred about
three o’clock; but no challenge followed. About
four it was understood that Mr. D’Esterre was in
the streets; and Mr. O’Connell paraded about
with one or two friends, but did not come across
his antagonist. A multitude soon collected about
him, among whom there could not be less than
five hundred gentlemen of respectability; and Mr.
O’Connell then had no other resource left, than to
take refuge in a house in Exchequer-street. In
a short time Judge Day entered, in his magisterial
capacity, to put him under arrest. The hon.
Justice said he would be satisfied if he had the
213guarantee of Mr. O’Connell’s honour that he
would proceed no farther in the business. “It
is not my business, Mr. Justice,” said Mr. O’Connell,
“to be the aggressor. Further, however, I
must tell you, that no human consideration will
induce me to go.” The hon. Justice then retired;
and Mr. O’Connell shortly after repaired to
Merrion-square. No challenge of any kind grew
out of Tuesday’s proceedings.
On Wednesday morning, however, it was at
length intimated to Mr. O’Connell that Mr. D’Esterre
intended to call upon him for a meeting.
Twelve o’clock was fixed upon for the nomination
of hour and place. There was some overture
made to enlarge the time, but Mr. O’Connell’s
friend would not consent. We should mention
that his friend was Major Macnamara, of Doolen,
in the county of Clare, a Protestant gentleman
attached to no party, and of the highest respectability.
The friend of Mr. D’Esterre was Sir
Edward Stanley.
After some discussion the parties fixed upon
the place which we have already mentioned. It
is about twelve miles distant from this city, and
constitutes part of Lord Ponsonby’s demesne.
The hour appointed was half-past three o’clock.
At three precisely (we can speak confidently, for
we now speak from personal knowledge), Mr.
O’Connell, attended by his second, Surgeon
Macklin, and a number of friends, was on the
214ground. About four, Mr. D’Esterre, attended
only by Surgeon Peel, Sir Edward Stanley (his
second), and a Mr. D’Esterre, of Limerick, appeared.
There was some conversation between
the seconds as to position, mode of fire, &c.;
which, added to other sources of delay, occupied
forty minutes. During this interval Mr. D’Esterre
took occasion to say that his quarrel with
Mr. O’Connell was not of a religious nature. To
the Catholics, or their leaders, he said he had no
animosity whatever.
At forty minutes past four the combatants were
on the ground; they both displayed the greatest
coolness and courage. The friends of both parties
retired, and the combatants, having a pistol in
each hand, with directions to discharge them at
their discretion, prepared to fire. They levelled,
and before the lapse of a second, both shots were
heard. Mr. D’Esterre’s was first, and missed. Mr.
O’Connell’s followed instantaneously, and took
effect in the thigh of his antagonist, about an inch
below the hip. Mr. D’Esterre of course fell, and
both the surgeons hastened to him. They found
that the ball had “traversed the hip,” and could
not be found. There was an immense effusion of
blood. All parties prepared to move towards
home, and arrived in town before eight o’clock.
It is said that Mr. D’Esterre’s wound is very
dangerous; we sincerely hope, however, that it
will not prove mortal. The ball passed through
215both thighs. There was a violent hæmorrhage
of the bladder last night, but it had ceased before
morning.
We need not describe the emotions which burst
forth all along the road, when it was ascertained
that Mr. O’Connell was safe.
Mr. D’Esterre died at five o’clock on the 3rd.
The particulars of this duel were reported as
follows:—
The Dublin Corporation, at the period, was
considered as the stronghold of the Protestant
ascendancy, and the hostility to what were called
the Catholic claims was carried to great excess.
Mr. O’Connell, the champion of his party, assumed
a tone equally violent and acrimonious; and
at a meeting of the Catholics, held in Dublin,
spoke of the corporation of that city in the most
contemptuous terms, and amongst other abusive
epithets, called it “a beggarly corporation,” an
expression which soon became a by-word with
their opponents.
Mr. D’Esterre, a young man of great respectability
and high spirit, felt indignant at the reproach
cast upon the body of which he was a
member; and there is reason to believe that his
indignation was fanned by the instigation of his
colleagues, who were anxious to rid themselves of
such a formidable opponent as O’Connell. D’Esterre,
therefore, addressed a letter to O’Connell, to
216know whether he had used the expression which
the public papers attributed to him. O’Connell,
in reply, neither admitted nor disclaimed the
alleged charge, but stated that no terms, however
reproachful, could exceed the contemptuous
feelings he entertained for the corporation as a
public body. To this he added, that his letter
must close all correspondence on the subject. Mr.
D’Esterre was advised to address another letter to
Mr. O’Connell, which was returned unread, by
that gentleman’s brother. Various reports were
now circulated, and it was stated that D’Esterre
intended to offer O’Connell personal violence,
should he meet him in the streets. Thus did a
week pass, during which threats and violent language
were exchanged between the two hostile
parties; and it was generally concluded that a duel
could not be avoided. Mr. George Lidwell, at
Mr. O’Connell’s request, had waited a few days in
Dublin expecting a message from Mr. D’Esterre,
and at length Sir Edward Stanley, Barrack-master
of Dublin, and a friend of Mr. D’Esterre, waited
on O’Connell with the hostile message so long
expected. The challenge was accepted, and the
necessary arrangements were made between Major
Macnamara and Sir E. Stanley.
The parties met at Bishop’s Court demesne, Lord
Ponsonby’s seat, in the county Kildare, thirteen
miles from Dublin. It is said that in the meeting
Mr. D’Esterre had been very disadvantageously
217placed by his second, being in a line with a
tree, which afforded direction to his adversary’s
aim.
Colonel Palmer had been at Bourdeaux, and on
his return to Paris, on Thursday last, found that
Mr. Lawrell (Colonel Quentin’s brother-in-law)
had left a card repeatedly at his hotel during his
absence; in consequence of which he immediately
signified his arrival to that gentleman. Mr. Lawrell
soon after waited upon him with a challenge
from Colonel Quentin. The parties met: Colonel
Quentin accompanied by his relative, and Colonel
Palmer by Mr. T. Thompson, member for Midhurst.
The distance measured was twelve paces;
and the challenger, thinking himself aggrieved,
having given his first fire, Colonel Palmer showed
that he was influenced by no personal motive, by
instantly discharging his pistol in the air.
Mr. Lawrell and Colonel Quentin having thereupon,
in answer to an inquiry from Mr. Thompson,
declared themselves perfectly satisfied, the
affair terminated, and the parties returned to Paris.
The Duke de Guiche and two French surgeons
were on the ground.
218
About three o’clock on Monday last, a duel was
fought between two gentlemen of this city, near to
Caroline Park. Intimation of their intention being
given to the Sheriff, a warrant was issued for their
apprehension; but before the officers could reach
the ground, the parties had interchanged shots
without effect. They and their seconds were
however taken into custody; and on inquiry into
the circumstances of the case, the cause of quarrel
appeared so unsatisfactory, and the whole proceeding
of those concerned so very strange, that,
besides ordering them to find security to keep the
peace, the Sheriff fined both principals and
seconds in twenty-five guineas each; and ordered
the same to be applied for the benefit of the
Lunatic Asylum, as being, from its nature, an
institution best entitled to a fine derived from
such a source.
Towards the close of the same year, another
fatal duel was fought in Ireland. In the month
of December, 1815, a vessel was cast ashore by
stress of weather upon the coast of Tirivagh, near
the residence of Major Hillas, who was an active
magistrate, and a young man of the most humane
disposition. On hearing of the disaster, he immediately
219hastened to the spot to discharge his
duties, and to fulfil his natural inclination. The
captain, he found, had fallen overboard; and to
his exertions, during the entire of a dark stormy
night, the safety of the mate and eleven of the
crew was chiefly to be attributed.
While Major Hillas was thus laudably engaged,
Mr. John Fenton, a neighbouring gentleman,
came up, and interfered in a manner which appeared
to him highly incorrect; an altercation
arose, which ended in Mr. Fenton’s threatening
to throw Major Hillas into the sea. He, however,
continued his exertions from the 6th to
the 8th December, on which day Mr. Fenton
arrived with a party of yeomanry, and forced the
property out of his hands. It was in vain that
Major Hillas remonstrated; that he declared that
his object was not salvage, and that he only endeavoured
to save as much as possible from the
wreck for the benefit of the owners. Being thus
frustrated in his intentions, he made a journey to
Scotland, where the owners of the vessel resided,
in order to make them acquainted with all the
circumstances of the business. On his return
Mr. Fenton thought proper to send him a message,
which the Major very properly declined
accepting. An investigation as to the right of
salvage afterwards took place, during the course
of which Major Hillas complained that he had
been most unhandsomely treated by Mr. Fenton,
220who had interfered unjustifiably; and by taking
the mate out of his hands, secured to himself, in
an unhandsome manner, the legal custody of the
vessel. Four days after the close of the investigation,
Mr. John Fenton delivered a message to
Major Hillas from Mr. Thomas Fenton. Major
Hillas accepted the challenge, and when on the
ground addressed the crowd of bystanders, saying—“I
am sorry the mistaken laws of honour
oblige me to come here to defend myself, and I
declare to God I have no animosity to man or
woman on the face of the earth.” Major Hillas,
in anticipation of a fatal result, had dressed himself
in a full suit of mourning. On the first shot
he fell dead. Mr. Fenton was afterwards tried for
the capital offence, but was acquitted by the jury.
Yesterday evening a meeting took place near
Merlin Park, between P. Dillon, Esq., of this
town, and B. Kane, Esq., of ——, when the
former received his adversary’s ball under the
right breast, and instantly expired.
These two gentlemen were close friends for
many years. Mr. Dillon had fought several duels,
in all of which Mr. Kane acted as his second. And
it is remarkable that Mr. Dillon’s father lost his
life in an affair of honour with the late Malachy
Fallon, Esq., at the same age, and nearly on the
same spot where his son fell.
221
A dispute between Mr. Alley and Mr. Adolphus,
which originated in the court of the Old
Bailey, during a late trial, has at length been
brought to a termination, and without any fatal
result.
On November 13th, Mr. Adolphus sent notice
to Mr. Alley, that he would be ready to meet
him at Calais as soon as ever he chose; the parties
being bound over by the magistrates to preserve
the peace within this kingdom. Mr. Alley accepted
the challenge, and on the 14th set out for
Dover, accompanied by Captain Alley, his cousin
and second. Two of his intimate friends, Mr.
Agar and Mr. Bevil, also voluntarily accompanied
him. They arrived at Calais on the 15th, some
hours before Mr. Adolphus; and at two o’clock
on the 16th, after the preliminary business was
arranged by the seconds, the combatants met, a
short distance from the town; took their ground;
and on the signal being given, they both fired together.
Mr. Alley was wounded in the right
arm; and the ball from his pistol passed so close
to his adversary, as almost to graze his head.
Here the business terminated. An eminent surgeon
being immediately sent for, extracted the
ball from Mr. Alley’s arm.
222
On Wednesday a duel was fought here between
Major Lockyer and Mr. Sutton Cochrane,
recently a lieutenant in the Royal Navy, which
proved fatal to the latter, he having received his
antagonist’s ball under the right breast, which
passed through both ventricles of the heart, and
the lungs.
These gentlemen, in company with a Mr.
Redesdale, a Mr. Hand, and upwards of sixty
others, were going out as adventurers to South
America, in the ship Grace, Davy master, now
lying in these roads, wind-bound. The trifling
difference between the parties arose in consequence
of an expression of an unguarded nature
from the deceased, the evening before, while regaling
themselves, with several others, at an inn;
he having asserted, that they were all in debt,
and were seeking their fortunes. At which the
major felt very indignant, and asked, if the
other meant to include him? The deceased replied
in the affirmative, and declared he would
prove his assertion, which he did by giving a
very ingenious explanation, observing, that if we
were not in debt to any of our fellow-beings,
we were all indebted to our Maker. But the
major, not considering the explanation satisfactory,
insisted on Mr. Cochrane’s meeting him
223the next morning, at the dawn of day, who very
reluctantly fell into the measure, previously declaring
that he would not fire himself, but that if
his opponent insisted, he would receive his fire.
It was agreed that they should both fire at one
time; but when the signal was made, it was
observed, the deceased never raised his arm to
level his pistol, while the ball of his antagonist’s
pistol immediately struck the seat of life.
When the pistol of the deceased was examined
afterwards, it was found neither unstopped nor
cocked. The major, and the two seconds, Messrs.
Redesdale and Hand, immediately decamped across
the water.
The deceased was a well-educated and genteel
young man, about twenty years of age, and we
believe a relation of Lord Cochrane.
A coroner’s inquest sat upon the body, the
jury delivered their verdict, “wilful murder,”
against Major Lockyer, and Messrs. Redesdale
and Hand, and the coroner issued his warrant for
their apprehension. Mr. Hand was apprehended
(by Allen, the Newport constable) at Portsmouth,
on Thursday; the others are at large.
Major Lockyer and Mr. Hand were tried at
Winchester Assizes, on the 7th of March, 1818;
and the jury returning a verdict of manslaughter,
they were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.
224
Yesterday morning, between eight and nine
o’clock, Mr. Theodore O’Callaghan, and Lieutenant
Bailey of the 58th regiment, met in a field
near Chalk Farm, to fight a duel, accompanied
by Mr. Charles Newbolt, and Mr. Thomas Joseph
Phealan, as seconds. Lieutenant Bailey received
a wound in his right side, which proved fatal,
as he languished about two hours, and then expired.
Mr. O’Callaghan and the two seconds
were afterwards taken into custody, and brought
to this office, when they underwent an examination
before Mr. Conant, the sitting magistrate,
and the following particulars transpired:—
Thomas Hunt, a constable at Hampstead, stated—That
he was sent for to Mr. Adams’s house,
near Chalk Farm, in Ingram’s Lane, near the
Load of Hay, where he took the prisoners into
custody, in consequence of a gentleman having
been killed in a duel.
Mr. Adams, who occupies the house above
alluded to, attended, and stated—That about nine
o’clock that morning he was in his bedroom, in
the act of dressing himself, when he heard the
discharge of two pistols, which induced him to
look out of his window. He saw four gentlemen
two fields off his house, near Chalk Farm, whom
225he considered in the act of fighting a duel. As
they did not separate or disperse, he was fearful
they would fire again. He therefore finished
dressing himself with all possible speed, and hurried
off to the spot, to endeavour to prevent the
shot being repeated. Just as he arrived at the
gate, and was in the act of getting over it, two
pistols went off. He observed one of the gentlemen,
who appeared to have discharged one of
the pistols, turn round, and concluded he had
received one of the shots. The other three gentlemen,
the prisoners, went up to him instantly,
and supported him on each side, to prevent him
from falling. Each of them held him by the
arm. On the witness getting up to them, one of
them said to him, they were all friends. He saw
blood running down the trowsers of the deceased
profusely. The three prisoners gave him their
names and addresses. He did not see a pistol in
the possession of the deceased, or any of the
prisoners. He invited the prisoners to conduct
the deceased to his house, which they accordingly
did. He did not observe any other person in the
field, where the parties were, or near the spot.
He observed to the parties, that it was an unfortunate
affair. They all agreed, it was so. They
inquired of him, if there was a house near for the
prisoners to conduct the deceased to, as they were
fearful of putting him to inconvenience. However,
there being no public-house near, they
226supported him to his house, which was about four
or five hundred yards off.
The deceased appeared to him to be in a dangerous
state, and blood was running out of his
trowsers very fast. A surgeon was sent for with
all possible speed. The deceased was laid on a
sofa in his parlour, and while he was lying there,
he desired Mr. Theodore O’Callaghan to come to
him, and held out his hand to shake hands with
him, and said, he had behaved most honourably.
The deceased had observed, that he was sensible
he was dying, and could not live long. After
this, he called the other two prisoners to him,
shook hands with them, and made similar observations
to them, and said, he forgave them all.
Mr. O’Callaghan, after this, went off to Hampstead,
to get a coach to convey him from the witness’s
house. But in the mean time Mr. Rodd, a
surgeon of Hampstead, arrived, in about half an
hour from the time of the fatal shot. Mr. Rodd,
after having examined the wound, said it was impossible
to remove him. The shot had entered on
his right side, passed through his intestines, and
all but came through on the left side, it being
only confined by the skin. It was visible to the
eye. The shot had carried with it a piece of the
cloth of his coat, and other garments.
The deceased had observed to him, that the
quarrel which had been the cause of the duel
was not originally a quarrel of their own, but had
227sprung out of a quarrel of their mutual friends,
who were to have fought a duel yesterday, and
they were to have been their seconds. Upon
recollection, he would not be positive whether it
was the deceased or Mr. O’Callaghan who made
this observation. He, however, understood that
it was the prisoner O’Callaghan who shot the
deceased. He did not observe any pistols in the
possession of either of the parties, but he found
two pistols lying on the table of his parlour;
none of them owned them; but he had no doubt
of their belonging to them (they were produced
in the office in an unloaded state); they were of
a large size. There were no pistols there before
they came into the house. The deceased lived
about two hours, or two hours and a quarter.
All the prisoners paid every possible attention to
the deceased, during the time he lived. He
conversed with them all, and particularly with
Mr. T. Phealan, who, the deceased told the witness,
had been his second, or his friend, he could
not recollect which. He heard him request Mr.
Phealan to write the full particulars of the whole
affair to his father, who, he understood, lived at
Limerick.
Mr. Phealan had some conversation with the
deceased privately, every other person having left
the room. He then went off to London to procure
more surgical assistance. On his return,
the deceased had expired. Mr. Newbolt went,
228in the mean time, to inquire for lodgings at
Chalk Farm, or the neighbourhood. Mr. O’Callaghan
went to Hampstead to procure a coach.
They all appeared anxious to do everything for
the deceased, and did not seem inclined to abscond,
but very readily surrendered themselves.
The prisoners were not called upon for any
defence. The magistrates informed them, the
law did not make any distinction in cases of
murder, all being considered as principals. They
must all, therefore, be detained. It was suggested
to the magistrate, that safe custody was
all, probably, that he would require; to which he
assented, and it was agreed, that they should be
kept in the watchhouse till the decision of the
coroner’s inquest should be known; when it was
suggested by the magistrate, that it was probable
he might admit Mr. Phealan to bail. He regretted
that the surgeon had not attended.
Public Office, Bow Street.
Yesterday morning another investigation took
place, before Richard Birnie, Esq., respecting the
cause of the death of Lieutenant Edward Bailey,
of the 58th regiment. Mr. George Rodd, the
surgeon of Hampstead, who had omitted to
attend the examination on Monday evening, attended
yesterday morning, and stated, That he
was sent for on Monday morning, with great
speed, to go to Mr. Adams’s house in Ingram’s
229Lane, to attend a gentleman who had been severely
wounded. He arrived at Mr. Adams’s
house about ten o’clock, where he saw a gentleman,
who had been wounded, lying on a sofa.
He proceeded to examine the wound, and he
found a ball had penetrated on his right side,
very nearly in a line with his navel. He proceeded
to examine him on his left side, when he
discovered that a ball was resting between his
skin and the muscles. He succeeded in extracting
the ball from the wound, and then dressed it.
The three gentlemen, who are the prisoners, were
present in the room at the time he examined
the wounds of the deceased. After Lieutenant
Bailey died, he opened the body, and found his
intestines had been wounded in three different
places, and which he had no doubt had caused
his death.
Mr. William Adams, who has acted so humanely
in this unfortunate transaction, attended
again, and stated, in addition to the testimony
which he gave on Monday evening,—That after
the deceased had called Mr. O’Callaghan to him
on the sofa, and shook hands with him, and said
everything had been conducted in the most honourable
manner, and that he forgave him, he
asked Mr. O’Callaghan if he would have done the
same by him if he had wounded him? To this
Mr. O’Callaghan replied, most certainly he should
have acted as he had done; and followed up
230the observation by saying, “I wish I had been
wounded instead of you.”
Mr. O’Callaghan appeared much affected, and
said, “You touched me in the first fire we had on
one of my legs, by what is called a graze.” He
then exhibited his trowsers and boots; when it
appeared, that a ball had passed through both the
legs of his trowsers, and one of his boots. He
saw the deceased, Lieutenant Bailey, shake hands
very heartily with Mr. O’Callaghan, previously to
their parting.
The three prisoners were ordered to be detained
in custody.
On the application of an attorney engaged for
the prisoners, Mr. Birnie agreed to their undergoing
another investigation previous to their commitment
for trial; and the attorney wrote to
Mr. Adams, requesting it as a favour that he
would attend again last evening at 7 o’clock, at
which hour the three prisoners were brought
again to this office; and Mr. Birnie having taken
his seat on the bench, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Arabin,
and another barrister, whose name we understood
to be Gould, presented themselves to the magistrate
in behalf of the prisoners.
Mr. Nolan first addressed the magistrate, and
requested, that as the coroner’s inquest had not
yet sat, and would not sit till to-morrow, as the
prisoners were now in safe custody, the magistrate
would let them remain where they had
231hitherto been confined; as he well knew it was
in vain to urge any discretionary power of the
magistrate, as to bailing them, till the decision of
the coroner’s jury was known.
The learned gentleman said, he felt strongly
the charge of the crime under which the prisoners
laboured; but he would say, that nothing he had
heard of the evidence against them, in the least
affected them as to premeditated murder. With
regard to one of the prisoners, Mr. Phealan, he
was the particular friend of the deceased, and
was by no means instrumental to the violence
that had been committed. All that Mr. Adams
said respecting him, and he was the most material
witness, was, that he was there on the spot at
the time that the deceased came by his death.
For anything that appeared in evidence, he might
have been there accidentally; the spot where the
transaction took place being near a public road
and a path, he might have been an idle spectator.
He must now answer for the highest crime which
the law knew. The question he had to urge
was, whether he was to remain in custody or be
admitted to bail, till his trial; which he urged as
to a sense of honour and humanity, and which
he had no doubt was possessed by the gentleman
by whom the business was first investigated, Mr.
Conant; and if he had then been present, he
should have taken the liberty of asking Mr.
Adams a few questions, which he flattered himself
232would have induced the magistrate to have
admitted the gentlemen to bail. If the coroner’s
inquest had met and pronounced their verdict,
the case would be altered. As Mr. Adams had
not arrived, he trusted there would be no objection
to let them remain where they were. To
meet his fate, was the wish of his friend, Mr.
O’Callaghan, as soon as possible; to him the
trial would be the most interesting, and he by
no means wished to defer it. All he wished
for was, that they might be remanded till to-morrow
morning. After the coroner’s inquest
had sat upon the body of Lieutenant Bailey, and
returned a verdict, it would then be a question,
whether all or any of the gentlemen should be
admitted to bail.
Mr. Arabin followed Mr. Nolan, and very
handsomely acknowledged the kindness which
had been shown him, in allowing him to read the
evidence which had been taken in writing against
his clients. He proceeded to enlarge upon it, and
urged that there was not a shadow of difference
between Mr. Phealan and Mr. Newbolt; and solicited
that their commitment might be deferred,
and that they might be admitted to bail.
Mr. Birnie in reply, said it was his wish to do
justice to all; the prisoners had all been found on
the spot.
Mr. Arabin admitted that there was no doubt
233about that; but he appealed to the magistrate to
feel as a man, a gentleman, and as a lawyer.
Mr. Birnie said, he had a public duty to perform.
In answer to the arguments of the learned
counsel, he quoted the celebrated case of Montgomery
and Macnamara, in which Mr. Heaviside,
the surgeon, was committed to Newgate, who had
only been attending professionally; yet he was
committed on a charge of murder. In that case,
it will be recollected, Sir Richard Ford was committing
magistrate, who at that time took up the
practice of duelling in a very spirited manner;
and publicly expressed his determination to commit
the surgeon, and all persons who were present
at fatal duels, to take their trials for murder.
And it was this firm conduct in the magistrate at
that period, which checked the spirit of duelling
for some time after; Mr. Heaviside being confined
in Newgate for a considerable time, and at
a very heavy expense. Bail to any amount could
have been procured for Mr. Heaviside, but the
application was refused.
The other learned counsel was heard in favour
of the prisoners. Mr. Nolan said their only motive
for the application in behalf of the prisoners
was, that they would be more comfortable where
they had been, during the night, than in Newgate.
Mr. Birnie observed that he did not know
that magistrates had anything to do with coroner’s
inquests. Mr. Nolan said that if the magistrate
234complied with the application, no mischief,
public or private, could happen. The magistrate
observed, that it was in evidence before him, that
one of the king’s subjects had been deprived of
life, and primâ facie it was murder. He had now
made up his mind: the prisoners must all be committed
to Newgate to take their trials for the
murder of Lieutenant Bailey; and he was convinced
that the three learned gentlemen would
allow that he had decided right.
The prisoners were given into the custody of
the officers to be conveyed to Newgate; and, on
the 14th of January, they were tried at the Old
Bailey for the crime laid to their charge; when
the jury having returned a verdict of “manslaughter,”
they were sentenced to be imprisoned
three months in Newgate.
On the 1st of March, a fatal duel took place at
Avranches, on the French coast, opposite to Jersey.
It arose in consequence of a dispute between
Lieutenants Cartwright and Maxwell of the
British Navy. Lieutenant Cartwright received
his adversary’s first fire: the ball entered his forehead,
and he expired in a few moments. He had
been married at St. Helier’s, only a few weeks
before, to Miss Mann, niece to the Bishop of
Cork and Ross.
235
An affair of honour was this day decided on
the Flats near Chester, between Viscount Belgrave
and Sir John G. Egerton. On the first fire
Sir John’s ball struck Lord Belgrave in the pistol
arm, and slightly wounded his lordship. The
quarrel between the parties originated in certain
proceedings which had taken place on the preceding
day, at the annual election of mayor for the
city of Chester. A Mr. Baker, in proposing Mr.
Evans, a gentleman in the Government interest,
as mayor, made what were considered pointed allusions
to some of the Egerton party, and insinuated
that they had been stimulated by Sir John
Egerton himself. The insinuation was required
by Sir John to be disavowed by Lord Belgrave,
who was present; but this his lordship refused.
The greatest confusion then arose in the assembly,
and the Recorder was ultimately obliged to adjourn
the court to another day. The meeting
between Sir John and Lord Belgrave was immediately
afterwards arranged.
On the 23rd of March, while Captain Johnston
was on the main-guard duty at Gibraltar, a report
236was made to him, that five individuals had been
taken into custody by a sentry, on their way
home from the play, for being without lights,
contrary to the garrison regulations. Captain
Johnston immediately ordered a sufficient number
of men to see them home. In about ten
minutes the police-sergeant who accompanied
them, returned with three of the five in custody;
and acquainted Captain Johnston that Archibald
Taylor had endeavoured to escape from the
sentry, and had made use of provoking and abusive
language to him. Having, upon inquiry,
found the report to be correct, Captain Johnston
ordered the offender to be confined in the
Crib; an order which he resisted, and used very
offensive language to Captain Johnston himself.
At this time Captain Johnston was not at all
aware that he was an American. Taylor demanded
satisfaction for the treatment he had
received; but the Captain considered that he had
merely acted in conformity with his duty, reported
the whole affair to the field-officer, who
approved of the course that had been pursued,
and ordered Taylor to be continued in confinement.
In the morning Mr. Taylor was released; and
upon the circulation of a report, two days afterwards,
that Captain Johnston had declined to
meet him or the American consul, who was said
to have offered “to stand in his shoes,” the former
237having been obliged to sail immediately with the
vessel of which he was master. Captain Johnston
applied to the Consul for an explanation; when
that gentleman disavowed any knowledge of the
reports in question, and gave the Captain his
thanks for the gentlemanly conduct he had
evinced in the business.
Thus matters continued till the evening of the
31st, when Captain Johnston received the following
letter by the hands of Lieutenant Stockton,
first Lieutenant of the American sloop of war
Erie:—
“Erie Sloop, March 3rd 1819.
“Sir,
“You have refused to give the satisfaction due
to a man of honour, whom you did not hesitate
to insult, because he was no more than a commander
of an American merchant schooner. That
gentleman is known to me, and I vouch for his
equality to you in every respect. I am his representative;
and the satisfaction I understand
you boast to have offered his friends, I demand
as an American. My rank, I trust, is enough for
any man of honour; and you will do me the
favour to consider the bearer, my friend, for your
use.
(Signed) Benjamin T. Browne.”
Mr. Browne was surgeon of the Erie. Captain
Johnston instantly accepted the challenge; and
the next morning, a meeting took place between
them, upon the neutral ground; Captain Johnston
238having distinctly disavowed making any
boast with regard to Mr. Taylor. The arrangement
made by their mutual friends on the ground
was, distance eight paces, the word to be given,
“Are you ready, gentlemen?” and, on assent
being given, both to fire, after a pause for taking
aim, while one, two, three, could be counted.
On the first fire Captain Johnston received his
opponent’s ball through his hat. They were
handed pistols a second time. The Captain fired;
but Mr. Browne reserved his fire so long, that
the friend of the former exclaimed, “That is
not fair!” on which he fired. Captain Johnston
expressed his indignation at the reservation of
fire by his antagonist. After some warm language
on both sides, the third discharge took
place, without effect; and on the fourth,—which
was rather hurried, in consequence of the approach
of a sergeant’s guard,—Captain Johnston’s
ball took effect in Mr. Browne’s thigh. His
friend, Mr. Stockton, immediately took up the
ground, desiring Captain Johnston to keep his.
They were about proceeding, when the sergeant’s
guard reached the spot, and prevented any further
progress at that time.
Mr. Stockton insisted on meeting Captain Johnston
the next morning, at five o’clock; to which
the latter agreed, and returned to the garrison.
Captain Johnston was prevented from meeting
in the morning, from the circumstance of his
239having been put under arrest, and an order of
garrison being made, that no officer should be
permitted to pass the barriers, in coloured clothes
or otherwise; he, however, contrived to elude the
vigilance of the guard in the afternoon, and at
half-past four met Mr. Stockton at St. Michael’s
Cave.
The seconds instantly entered into conversation
as to the mode of firing. Mr. Stockton’s friend
proposed that they should, on receiving the word,
take an unlimited time for aim. This was objected
to by Captain Johnston’s friend as sanguinary,
and at variance with those principles of
honour upon which such meetings are founded.
Some argument followed, which ended in a determination
to decide by chance which mode
should be adopted. The result was favourable to
the more humane course; but the time which
was lost in the dispute exposed them to the
interruption of the guard, which was seen approaching.
It was now discovered that Mr.
Stockton had no pistols, and one of Captain Johnston’s
was borrowed for his use. Having taken
their ground at the distance of eight paces,
Mr. Stockton proceeded to take a steady aim,
by resting the barrel of his pistol on his left
hand. Captain Johnston’s friend objected to this;
and again the American endeavoured to justify
that very unusual mode of deciding such matters.
At length the guard was seen within a hundred
240paces, and Captain Johnston desired that the
affair might proceed in the usual manner. This
was agreed to, and the discharge took place: the
ball of Lieutenant Stockton’s pistol passed through
Captain Johnston’s great coat; and, before a
second fire could take place, the guard came up
and interfered.
A duel was fought at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on
the 1st of August, between Mr. Uniacke, son of
the Attorney-General, and Mr. Bowie, an auctioneer;
when the latter was killed on the spot.
The deceased had been under a prosecution for
an offence; in which cause he considered Mr. Uniacke,
as the prosecuting attorney, had used improper
expressions regarding him, and therefore
called him out to the above ordeal.
The following are the particulars of a fatal duel
which took place at Montmartre, near Paris, on
the 6th of October, between Captain Pellew and
Lieutenant Walsh:—Mr. Walsh not long since
exchanged from the Life Guards, in which corps
Captain Pellew held his commission. Previously to
Mr. Walsh’s quitting the regiment, he had resided
with his wife a good deal in the barracks in Hyde
241Park; where, being young and thoughtless, she
unhappily received with too much readiness those
attentions which military men too often think
themselves at liberty to pay to every female. The
consequences were such as might be expected to
result from such infatuation. A close attachment
was formed between Captain Pellew and the lady;
and at length, in a fatal moment, she agreed to
sacrifice her character, by eloping with the object
of her blind affection. About a month before the
duel she went off with him from her father’s
house, where she had been residing for some
time, during the absence of her husband. They
repaired to Paris, whither they were followed by
Mr. Walsh; he preferring what is called the satisfaction
of a gentleman, to pursuing any legal
means of redress. A meeting was arranged: the
distance agreed upon was twelve full paces, and
they were to fire together by signal. When that
was given, the pistol of Mr. Walsh was immediately
discharged. Captain Pellew did not fire;
and it is said he never intended to do so. Mr.
Walsh’s ball passed through the right temple
into the brain of Captain Pellew, who instantly
expired.
CHAPTER III DUELS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES, FROM 1820 TO 1841. — BETWEEN MR. GRATTAN AND LORD CLARE. June 11, 1820. — BETWEEN T. HUNGERFORD, ESQ. AND R. TRAVERS, ESQ. August 13, 1820. — BETWEEN MR. R. STUART AND MR. TOWNSEND DADE. August 20, 1820. — BETWEEN MR. FULLIOT AND MR. BURROWES. September 17, 1820. — BETWEEN MR. JOHN SCOTT AND MR. CHRISTIE. February 16, 1821. — BETWEEN VISCOUNT PETERSHAM AND THOMAS WEBSTER WEDDERBURNE, ESQ. April 21, 1821. — BETWEEN M. MANUEL AND M. BEAUMONT. April 10, 1821. — BETWEEN MR. WILLIAM BRITTLEBANK AND MR. CUDDIE. May 22, 1821. — BETWEEN SIR ALEXANDER BOSWELL, BART., OF AUCHINLECK, AND MR. STUART, OF DUNCARN. March 26, 1822. — BETWEEN THE DUKE OF BEDFORD AND THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM. May 2, 1822. — BETWEEN M. BENJAMIN CONSTANT AND M. FORBIN DES ISSARTS. June 6, 1822. — BETWEEN M. PINAC AND AN ENGLISHMAN. July, 1822. — BETWEEN GENERAL PEPE AND GENERAL CARASCOSA. February, 1823. — BETWEEN COLONEL GRAVES AND CAPTAIN LACY. May, 1823. — BETWEEN THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. BATTIER. May 6, 1824. — BETWEEN CAPTAIN GOURLAY AND MR. WESTALL. October 30, 1824. — BETWEEN MR. LAMBTON, AFTERWARDS EARL OF DURHAM, AND MR. BEAUMONT. July 1, 1826. — BETWEEN THE MARQUIS DE LIVRON AND M. DU TRONE. November 18, 1826. — BETWEEN MR. BRIC AND MR. HAYES. December 26, 1826. — BETWEEN M. GOULARD AND M. CAIRE. February 21, 1827. — BETWEEN THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON AND THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA. March 21, 1829. — BETWEEN CAPT. HELSHAM AND LIEUT. CROWTHER. April 1, 1829. — BETWEEN MR. LAMBRECHT AND MR. CLAYTON. January 8, 1830. — BETWEEN CAPTAIN SMITH AND STANDISH O’GRADY, ESQ. March 17, 1830. — BETWEEN DR. SMITH AND DR. JEFFRIES. August, 1830. — BETWEEN GENERAL SEBASTIANI AND GENERAL LAMARQUE. August 1, 1831. — BETWEEN MAJOR-GENERAL MOORE AND MR. STAPYLTON. February 13, 1832. — BETWEEN GENERAL JACQUEMINOT AND M. BELMONTE. March 23, 1832. — BETWEEN M. COSTE AND M. BÉNOIT. September, 1832. — BETWEEN SIR JOHN JEFFCOTT AND DR. HENNIS. May 10, 1833. — BETWEEN M. CHARLES LEON, NATURAL SON OF NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE, AND CAPTAIN DE HESSE. August 1833. — BETWEEN THE DUKE DE ROVIGO AND COUNT DE LANGLE. February 14, 1835. — BETWEEN MR. ST. JOHN AND COUNT CATRAFFIANA. April 25, 1835. — BETWEEN CAPTAIN WHITE AND COLONEL BELLAMY. November 21, 1835. — BETWEEN BRIGADIER-GENERAL EVANS AND CAPTAIN DICKSON. April 8, 1836. — BETWEEN M. ARMAND CARREL AND M. ÉMILE DE GIRARDIN. July, 1836. — BETWEEN THE HONOURABLE GRANTLEY BERKELEY AND WILLIAM MAGINN, LL.D. August 4, 1836. — BETWEEN MR. HARRING AND A POLISH OFFICER. May 11, 1837. — BETWEEN MR. ANDERSON AND MR. JONES. August 1837. — BETWEEN MR. CILLEY AND MR. GRAVES. November 1837. — BETWEEN SIR JOHN MILLEY DOYLE AND DR. LOVELL. March 1838. — BETWEEN MR. PIGOT AND MR. CARROLL. April 27, 1838. — BETWEEN MR. RUSHOUT AND MR. BORTHWICK. May 8, 1838. — BETWEEN M. CALMEL AND M. LUARD. May 1838. — BETWEEN LORD CASTLEREAGH AND M. GERARD DE MELCY. June 16, 1838. — BETWEEN MR. MIRFIN AND MR. ELIOT. August 22, 1838. — BETWEEN THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. GRATTAN. January 13, 1839. — BETWEEN LORD POWERSCOURT AND MR. ROEBUCK. February 28, 1839. — BETWEEN LORD GEORGE LOFTUS AND LORD HARLEY. December 10, 1839. — BETWEEN LORD WILLIAM PAGET AND MR. FISKE. December 20, 1839. — BETWEEN MR. WYNN AND MR. BROWN, IN A STAGE-COACH. May 17, 1840. — BETWEEN M. THROUET AND M. PAULIN PRUÉ. June, 1840. — BETWEEN MR. ANTONIO GARBONIA AND MR. KECHOFF. July 4, 1840. — BETWEEN THE EARL OF CARDIGAN AND CAPTAIN HARVEY GARNETT PHIPPS TUCKETT. September 12, 1840.
242
Mr. Grattan, son of the deceased patriot, having,
at a public meeting in Dublin, made use of
expressions which Lord Clare conceived to reflect
upon the late Lord Clare, his father, and having
declined either to explain or to justify them, the
parties met in Hyde Park; when Mr. Grattan,
having received Lord Clare’s fire, instantly fired
in the air. The friends present having given their
opinion, that the affair could proceed no further,
Mr. Grattan said, that having now met Lord
Clare in the field, and given him the satisfaction
required, he was willing to admit he was
in the wrong, in having made use of such expressions.
Upon which the parties shook hands, and
the affair terminated.
243
A fatal duel took place on the 13th of August
at the island, within four miles of Klonakilty, between
T. Hungerford, Esq., and R. Travers, Esq.,
a young gentleman of that neighbourhood. In
the first fire the latter received the ball in his
forehead, and instantly expired. The cause of
the dispute was of some standing, and was likely
to have terminated amicably, through the interference
of mutual friends; but, unfortunately, on
the preceding day a difference occurred upon a
trivial point in the arrangement, which led to
the lamentable catastrophe. They had been previously
on terms of the closest intimacy.
A duel was this day fought between Mr.
Richard Stuart and Mr. Townsend Dade, both of
King George county, Virginia, on the Maryland
shore, immediately opposite their residence, at a
short distance, and with muskets loaded with
buck-shot. Mr. Dade was shot dead, and Mr.
Stuart was so severely wounded, that he expired
in a few hours. They were near relations, neighbours,
and theretofore close friends. The unfortunate
difference occurred about a mere trifle.
244
In consequence of a dispute Mr. Fulliot, a gentleman
well known in Chester for his amiability
of disposition, on Monday morning received a
challenge from Mr. S. Burrowes, a person connected
with the law. The combatants drew lots
for the first fire, which Mr. Burrowes won; the
distance fixed upon was twelve paces. Shots were
exchanged without effect: the pistols were a
second time loaded, and both fired together with
a like result. An ineffectual attempt was now
made to reconcile the parties, and the fatal weapons
were again discharged, which unhappily
were too certain in their aim. A ball pierced
the head of Mr. Fulliot, and fractured his skull.
Mr. Burrowes was killed on the spot.
A duel, attended with fatal consequences, took
place on Friday evening, the 16th of February,
at nine o’clock, in a field between Chalk Farm
Tavern and Primrose Hill. The parties in this
unhappy conflict were Mr. John Scott, the avowed
editor of the London Magazine, and Mr. Christie,
a friend of the supposed conductor of Blackwood’s
Magazine, Mr. John Gibson Lockhart, of Edinburgh.
245The quarrel between these gentlemen
had its rise in a series of articles which appeared
in the London Magazine, discussing the conduct
and management of Blackwood’s Magazine, and
regarded by Mr. Lockhart as offensive to his feelings
and injurious to his honour. Mr. Christie,
as the friend of Mr. Lockhart, waited upon Mr.
Scott to demand an explanation of the articles in
question; and, in fact, to require a public apology
for matter which he considered personally
offensive to himself, or such other satisfaction as
a gentleman was entitled to. This interview led
to others, as well as to a correspondence, in which
much of mutual warmth was expressed.
To prevent misapprehension of what had occurred,
Mr. Scott published his statement of the
transactions to which he had been a party; which
was very generally circulated in the literary
world, as well as copied into some of the daily
papers. This was followed by a statement on the
part of Mr. Christie, the friend of Mr. Lockhart;
which was succeeded by a second statement from
the pen of Mr. Scott, in which he treated the
conduct of Mr. Lockhart with great asperity, and
defended the course which he had pursued with
considerable warmth. Then followed a counter-statement
from Mr. Christie; in consequence of
which, Mr. Scott proceeded with his friend Mr.
Patmore, to Mr. Christie’s lodgings, and demanded
246an apology or instant satisfaction. Mr. Christie
refused the former, and expressed his readiness,
without loss of time, to grant the latter.
The matter having come to this issue, it was
agreed they should meet at Chalk Farm; and
thither they proceeded, at nine o’clock on the same
evening. Mr. Scott was attended by his friend
Mr. Patmore, and by Mr. Pettigrew, his medical
adviser. The moon shone with brightness; so
that the party had a full opportunity of seeing
each other, and, having taken their ground, they
fired together without effect. The second fire
was fatal to Mr. Scott; who received his antagonist’s
ball in his groin and fell. Every assistance
which the circumstances would permit was
afforded him; and he was conveyed on a shutter
to Chalk Farm tavern; where he was laid
on a bed in an almost hopeless state. Mr. Christie
and his second then retired. Mr. Pettigrew,
after having rendered all the assistance in his
power to Mr. Scott, returned to town, in order to
procure further surgical assistance, and to give
directions that Mr. Scott’s apartments at Mr.
Bohte’s, in York-street, Covent-garden, should be
prepared for his reception, Mr. Scott having expressed
a desire to be removed home. A short
time after Mr. Pettigrew’s departure, however,
it was found that he could not be removed with
safety. On examination, it appeared that the ball
had passed through the intestines, and lodged at
247the opposite side. The surgeons in attendance,
however, deemed it prudent not to extract it,
lest additional inflammation should be excited,
and the danger, which was considered imminent,
be thereby enhanced.
After Mr. Scott was wounded, Mr. Christie’s
friend apprised Mr. Patmore, that, in the first
fire, Mr. Christie did not direct his pistol at
Mr. Scott; but this circumstance not having been
observed by Mr. Patmore, nor communicated to
him at the time, and the parties being still unreconciled,
a second fire unfortunately took place,
which terminated as above stated. On Sunday
Mr. Guthrie extracted the ball. Mr. Scott lingered
till Thursday, the 4th of March, when
he expired. On the same evening, the coroner’s
inquest sat on the body; upon which occasion
Dr. Darling stated, that Mr. Scott, referring to
his wound, had said, “This ought not to have
taken place; I suspect some great mismanagement;
there was no necessity for a second fire.”
After a short pause, he proceeded—“All I required
from Mr. Christie was a declaration, that
he meant no reflection on my character; this he
refused, and the meeting became inevitable: on
the field Mr. Christie behaved well, and when all
was ready for the fire, he called out—‘Mr. Scott,
you must not stand there; I see your head above
the horizon; you give me an advantage.’ I believe
he could have hit me then if he liked.
248After the pistols were re-loaded, and every thing
was ready for a second fire, Mr. Trail called out—‘Now,
Mr. Christie, take your aim, and do not
throw away your advantage, as you did before.’
I called out immediately, ‘What! did not Mr.
Christie fire at me?’ I was answered by Mr. Patmore,
‘You must not speak; ’tis now of no use
to talk; you have nothing now for it but firing.’
The signal was immediately given: we fired, and
I fell.” The deceased expressed himself satisfied
with Mr. Christie’s conduct; whom he described
as having been very kind to him after he was
wounded.
Mr. Pettigrew stated, that Mr. Christie asked
him what he thought of the wound. He replied,
that he feared it was mortal, in the hearing of Mr.
Scott; when Mr. Christie addressed Mr. Scott, and
expressed a wish “that he had been in Mr. Scott’s
situation, rather than Mr. Scott should have been
wounded by him.” Mr. Scott then said, “Whatever
may be the issue of this business, I beg you
will bear in remembrance, that everything has been
fair and honourable.” On being asked, if he did
not hear it said on the ground, by Mr. Christie, that
he had fired down the field, he replied—“I did;
to the best of my recollection, Mr. Christie said,
wringing his hands, apparently in agony, ‘Why
was I permitted to fire a second time? I discharged
my pistol down the field before; I could
do no more. I was compelled to fire in my own
249defence.’” These expressions were made in consequence
of some altercation which took place
between the seconds. Mr. Christie took Mr. Scott
by the hand after he was wounded.—The Coroner
having summed up the evidence, the jury returned
a verdict of “wilful murder” against Mr.
Christie, Mr. Trail, and Mr. Patmore.
On Friday, the 13th of April, Chief Justice
Abbott and Mr. Justice Park having taken their
seats on the bench, at the Old Bailey, Mr. Gurney,
who was their counsel, announced that Mr. Christie
and Mr. Trail attended to surrender and take their
trials, upon an indictment found by the grand jury
against them for murder. They were immediately
placed at the bar, and pleaded “Not guilty.” Mr.
Patmore did not make his appearance. The case
for the prosecution was opened by Mr. Walford;
who observed, that if the jury felt any doubts
as to the identity of the prisoners, or thought the
whole affair was gone through in heat, then they
would acquit the gentlemen at the bar. Dr.
Darling then repeated the evidence he had given
before the coroner. After which, Mr. Christie
and Mr. Trail being called on for their defence,
stated, that they should only call witnesses to
speak to their general character and habits of life.
A number of most respectable persons then bore
testimony to the general benevolence and humanity
of their dispositions.
Chief Justice Abbott then, after stating to the
250jury the nature of the indictment, proceeded to
instruct them as to the law of the case. The accusation
charged three persons as aiding and concurring
in the death of Mr. Scott: two individuals
only appeared; but if the jury believed that the
individuals at the bar were really two of those
who had aided in the commission of the crime, it
mattered not by whose particular hand the pistol
had been discharged. The distinction, in cases of
duels, between manslaughter and murder had been
very clearly and correctly marked out by the
learned counsel for the prosecution: if persons in
heat of blood went out and fought with deadly
weapons, then the law, allowing for the frailty of
human nature, deemed the party killing guilty of
manslaughter only; but if, yielding to a false notion
of honour, they went out upon deliberation
and in cold blood to fight, then the death of one
man fixed the crime of the murder upon all concerned;
upon seconds (frequently the more culpable
parties) as well as upon principals. The first question
then was, were the gentlemen at the bar two
of the parties known to have been in the field at
the time when the shot was fired? and next, was the
duel fought in heat of blood or upon deliberation?
His lordship then recapitulated the main points of
the evidence, and upon that evidence left the fact
of identity to the jury. It was possible, he said,
that the real perpetrators of the crime might have
escaped from the field before the arrival of Mr.
251Pettigrew, and that the prisoners at the bar might
have appeared accidentally at the moment; still
the onus of showing that such had been the case
lay in some measure upon them. Upon the
second point, the feeling under which (assuming
the identity) the duel had taken place—of the
time or place at which the quarrel originated there
was no evidence. The declaration of Mr. Scott,
at the moment of his fall, that all had been done
fairly and honourably, was, although the law
would not recognise such ideas of honour,
entitled to the attention of the jury; and there
was another circumstance, arising out of the
words of the supposed Mr. Christie, to which
their consideration should be directed. They
were these—“Why was I allowed to fire a second
time? I fired down the field at first; what could
I do more? I was compelled to fire in my own
defence.” Now, the circumstances were not such
as would, in law, acquit a man as having fired in
his own defence; but the words might have an
operation upon the feeling under which the
second shot had been fired. It was possible that
Mr. Christie, having forborne to take aim the first
time, might have fired his second shot under an
impulse of immediate anger, produced by the
failure of his pacific proceeding; and in that case,
although his adversary fell, the crime amounted
only to manslaughter. The Lord Chief Justice
concluded by recommending the jury, in a case
252of doubt, to take the side of mercy; and by observing,
upon the excellent characters which the
prisoners had received, that, unfortunately, men
of the most exemplary humanity and benevolent
feeling were too often induced to take part in
transactions which led to the loss of life on one
side, and to remorse and repentance during life on
the other.
The jury, after a deliberation of twenty-five
minutes, returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”
A paragraph having appeared in the public
journals, alluding to an altercation between Lord
Petersham and Mr. Webster Wedderburne, and
hinting that his lordship had undergone personal
chastisement, Mr. Wedderburne was called upon
to contradict the statement in question. The
following is the correspondence that passed between
him and Lord Foley upon the occasion:—
“Sir,
“Upon my return home, at six o’clock this
evening, I first saw your publication in this day’s
morning paper, and, in consequence, lost no time
in dispatching an express to Lord Petersham, at
Brighton; who will instantly, upon receiving my
letter, return to town, and that moment you shall
hear from me. I write this, sir, to account for
253what may appear a delay on the part of Lord
Petersham in not writing to you the moment
your publication appeared.
“From yours, sir, &c.
“Foley.
“Hamilton-place, 7 o’clock, Thursday evening, April 19.
“P.S.—Lord Petersham cannot return before 7 or 8 to-morrow.”
“My Lord,
“I have this instant received your lordship’s
letter, and beg to state that I shall be at home at
all hours to-morrow, and ready to answer all
communications.
I am, &c.
“T. Webster Wedderburne.
“April 19, 8 o’clock, P.M.”
“Sir,
“Owing to a mistake. Lord Petersham did not
receive my letter till late this morning, consequently
is only just arrived. He now desires me
to say that it is absolutely necessary you should
either send a friend to me, or fix a time and place
of meeting to-morrow morning. I shall be at
home till eleven this evening to receive your reply.
“From your humble servant,
“Foley.
“Hamilton-place, Friday evening, 7 o’clock, April 20.”
“My Lord,
“It was with much surprise, after having been
detained at home the whole day, in consequence
254of your lordship’s note of last night, that I have
received one from you this evening, desiring me
either to send a friend to you, or to fix a time
and place for meeting Lord Petersham to-morrow
morning. Let Lord P. distinctly state the
grounds on which he calls upon me, and my
friend will then be ready to receive your lordship,
or any communication on the part of Lord P.
“I am, &c.
“T. Webster Wedderburne.
“Friday evening, April 20.”
“Hamilton-place, Friday evening, half-past 10.
“Sir,
“It is with astonishment that I received your
letter demanding an explanation of the ground
upon which Lord Petersham now calls upon you
for satisfaction. You have not contradicted, but
encouraged a most scandalous and prejudicial report
against his personal honour: he calls upon
you positively to contradict it, or give him that
satisfaction which is due to a gentleman falsely
accused. The cause of your having been kept
waiting during the day has clearly been explained;
I must, therefore, now repeat the necessity
of your immediately fixing upon the time
and place of meeting to-morrow, or giving under
your hand, for publication, a contradiction of that
scandalous and false report before alluded to.
Too much time has already been lost to attend to
255explanations that may, under some pretence, be
withdrawn.
“From yours,
“Foley.
“P.S.—An immediate answer is expected to the
above, directed to Brookes’s Club House, St.
James’s-street.”
“I am perfectly of Lord Foley’s opinion, that
too much time has been lost in this affair; but I
beg to ask to whom is that delay to be ascribed?
Since every circumstance has been made public,
and since so much has passed between the parties,
I considered it necessary, on that account alone,
to demand ‘the distinct grounds on which Lord
Petersham calls upon me.’ Lord Foley presents
me with an alternative which is wholly out of the
question. I am aware of no ‘false reports’ in
currency against Lord Petersham, and if Lord
Foley means that I could be capable of withdrawing
any explanation I had once given, I must
repel such an insinuation with indignation, and
I will not permit any person to dictate that line
of conduct to me which is alone consistent with
my own honour to point out. I now, therefore,
name three o’clock P.M., at Combe Wood, near
Kingston, where I shall expect to meet Lord
Petersham.
“T. Webster Wedderburne.”
256“I have received your letter, appointing three
o’clock to-morrow afternoon, to meet Lord Petersham
at Combe Wood, which shall be punctually
complied with.
“From yours,
“Foley.
“Brookes’s, Friday night.”
A meeting, in consequence of the above correspondence,
took place between the parties on the
following afternoon, at three P.M., attended by
Lord Foley and Mr. Kerr, the former as the
friend of Lord Petersham, the latter as that of
Mr. Webster Wedderburne; when, after exchanging
two shots, each without effect, the
seconds interfered, and the affair terminated.
The following singular and shocking duel took
place in Paris. The circumstances which led to
the sad result are extremely curious. One of the
parties was M. Manuel, a Pole, a man of great respectability
and of large fortune: he was about
fifty years of age, and the father of six children,
by the wife who survives him. M. Beaumont,
the other party, is a single man, between thirty
and forty, likewise of considerable property, and
a native of Geneva. They were both exchange
brokers.
About five or six months ago, M. Manuel, who
lived on the most affectionate terms with his wife,
257received an anonymous letter, saying that she was
unfaithful to him. He tore the letter with contempt,
and dismissed the matter from his mind.
In about a fortnight he received a second letter,
containing the same intimation; and this he
treated like the first. In a few days he received
a third, which stated, that as he was too incredulous
to be convinced, except by ocular proof, he
might have that proof the very next day, if he
chose. The writer then told him to go at two
o’clock to a particular house in a particular street,
and to make a certain signal which he described,
and he would then have no doubt of the writer’s
veracity. M. Manuel went accordingly at the
time designated to the house in question, and made
the described signal. The door was instantly
opened by a female, whom he knew to be his
wife, but who did not at first recognise him, but
throwing herself into his arms called him by the
name of Beaumont. The husband was now convinced.
He determined to leave Paris immediately;
he converted his French property into
disposeable effects, and set off for his native place,
Warsaw. Before he went, he proffered forgiveness
to his wife, and even agreed to live with her,
provided she would abandon her paramour. This
the mother of six children refused to do; and the
husband left Paris without her.
A few days before the fatal event he returned,
and reappeared on the exchange. Here he met
258M. Beaumont: a violent altercation ensued; and
the result was a challenge, and a positive agreement,
that one at least should not come out of the
field alive. They met the next morning, fired, and
M. Manuel was killed on the spot by a pistol shot
in the breast. M. Beaumont shortly after fled to
Switzerland, to escape the storm of indignation
which exhibited itself against him at Paris; his
colleagues on the exchange having come to a
resolution never to transact business with him
again.
The following curious circumstance occurred
at the funeral of M. Manuel. When the body
arrived at the church of St. Denys, in the Rue
Caumartin, the authorities refused to receive it,
because M. Manuel had been killed in a duel.
The populace, however, insisted on its being received,
and, after some delay, it was taken in. It
was then found that no priest was present to perform
the necessary rites: a second disturbance
took place, and at length one appeared, but not
habited in his canonicals; a fresh outcry, however,
induced the priest to robe himself, and the service
was performed in the usual manner. The body
was afterwards carried to the cemetery of Père la
Chaise, and there interred.
259
Mr. Cuddie, a Scotchman by birth, and a surgeon
in the navy, came about four years before
to reside at Winster, where he began to practise
his profession. An attachment had subsisted for
some time before his death between himself and
Miss Brittlebank, the daughter of an eminent
solicitor in the same town; and as she was in a
delicate state of health, he had frequent opportunities
of seeing her in his medical capacity.
Mr. Cuddie’s attentions to the lady met with the
decided disapprobation of her family, and it was
expressed to him in the strongest terms. On
Monday, the 21st of May, Mr. Cuddie and Miss
Brittlebank were met, whilst walking together,
by Mr. William Brittlebank, her brother; who
took his sister away, after some harsh words had
been exchanged between himself and Mr. Cuddie.
So improper did the language of Mr. Cuddie appear
to Mr. William Brittlebank, that he sent a
challenge to him on the evening of the same day.
To this Mr. Cuddie returned no answer, and
another messenger was dispatched to him on the
same errand the following morning, who was informed
by Mr. Cuddie that he would not meet
Mr. William Brittlebank, and therefore should
not reply to his note. In consequence of this,
Mr. Spencer, a surgeon, residing at Bakewell, a
260friend of both the parties, was sent for by Mr. W.
Brittlebank. He came, and about three o’clock
in the afternoon Mr. William and Mr. Francis
Brittlebank, accompanied by Mr. Spencer, proceeded
to Mr. Cuddie’s house. They were here
joined by Mr. Andrew Brittlebank; when Mr.
Spencer, going into the house, informed Mr.
Cuddie, that he must either make some apology
to Mr. William Brittlebank or fight. It is stated
that he again declined to do either the one or the
other. Subsequently, however, he appears to
have consented to give Mr. W. Brittlebank the
satisfaction he required: pistols were furnished
by Mr. Spencer to the parties: they separated to
a distance of fifteen yards on the gravel walk in
Mr. Cuddie’s garden, and on the signal being
given they fired. Mr. Cuddie unhappily received
the shot of his antagonist in his bowels, and died
on the following day.
A verdict of wilful murder was returned against
the three brothers, Andrew, William, and Francis
Brittlebank, and also against Mr. Spencer. Mr.
W. Brittlebank had absconded. The other three
were taken into custody, and conveyed to Derby
jail.
The trial of the parties came on in August,
before Mr. Justice Park, at the Derby Assizes.
Mr. Denman said, it was his painful duty to state
the circumstances of the case. The prisoners
were to be tried for a crime that was considered
261one of the heaviest of which human nature was
capable. A murder was charged to have been
committed by Mr. William Brittlebank, and the
prisoners stood on their trial for aiding, abetting,
and assisting in the said murder. The deceased,
Mr. Cuddie, had been a surgeon in the navy; he
had retired on half-pay, and resided at Winster,
where Mr. Brittlebank, the father of two of the
prisoners, resided. Mr. Cuddie had been on intimate
terms with the Brittlebanks, but their
friendship had fallen off in consequence of the
attention of the deceased to Miss Brittlebank,
which had been disapproved by the family. On
the 21st of May, the day before the death of
Mr. Cuddie, a letter was brought to him by
the servant of Mr. W. Brittlebank, complaining
of an insult which he said he had received,
and calling on the deceased to fight him, in order
to expiate that insult. Mr. Cuddie refused to
give any answer to the letter. In consequence
of this, on the following day the prisoner
Spencer, who had been sent for from Bakewell,
arrived at Winster, and agreed to go with a
message from Mr. W. Brittlebank, demanding
that Cuddie should fight him or make an apology.
Cuddie replied he had no apology to
make, and would not meet Mr. Brittlebank.
Spencer carried back this answer, and returned to
Cuddie with a new message; and on the deceased
repeating the determination which he had previously
262announced, he told him that Mr. W.
Brittlebank was in the garden, and he might
see and speak to him if he would not fight.
These were facts to be proved by witnesses,
and by the dying declaration of the deceased,
which, by law, could be received as evidence.
Cuddie went into the garden, where he found
William Brittlebank, with his brothers Andrew
and Francis, who had been seen to go from their
house to that of Mr. Cuddie. Here Andrew
Brittlebank appeared anxious to prevent the duel,
by calling on Mr. Cuddie to make an apology.
This he declined, and pistols were then produced;
and Mr. W. Brittlebank having walked fifteen or
sixteen yards from the deceased, both turned and
fired, as he believed. A ball had been found near
the spot on which Cuddie stood; one had been
sought for, but in vain, near that where Mr. Brittlebank
had taken his place. He, however, did
not mean to attach importance to that circumstance;
he believed that Mr. W. Brittlebank had
exposed his own life to the same risk which
he forced Mr. Cuddie to run. The contrary was
no part of the case for the prosecution. When,
however, four persons were found going to the
house of one, for the purpose of forcing him
to fight a duel, though the duel might be conducted
most fairly, according to the laws of
honour, it was murder, under certain circumstances,
in the eye of the law. Mr. Cuddie received
263the ball fired from the pistol of William
Brittlebank; he was then carried into the kitchen,
he believed, by Spencer and Andrew Brittlebank.
What followed would be proved by witnesses;
and he expected it would be proved, that Andrew
Brittlebank had at first denied having been
present; but when the deceased stated him to be
there, he then said, “Well, since you say so, did
I not try to prevent the duel, by pressing you to
offer something in the shape of an apology?”
William Brittlebank had said, that the deceased
must consider Spencer as his friend; and it would
be shown, that when Cuddie, in a dying state,
had been pressed to declare the duel had been a
fair one, he declined doing so, though aware of
his situation, sometimes by expressions, and at
others by actions of dissent, such as shaking his
head; and he certainly died without any such admission.
Should the evidence fail to make out
the charge, those concerned for the prosecution
would be most happy to hear of a verdict of
acquittal: should the facts be proved, their righteous
verdict must be given; and, painful as it
might be to themselves and all who heard it,
they would have but one duty to perform.
A variety of witnesses were called, who proved
the circumstances under which Mr. Cuddie lost
his life. It appeared that he had received much
provocation; but it appeared that the prisoners
had endeavoured to give him every assistance
264after he received the wound. The following is a
copy of the declaration made by Mr. Cuddie on
his death-bed:—
“The declaration of William Cuddie, of Winster,
surgeon, made before me, Philip Gell, Esq.,
one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the
county of Derby, this 22nd day of May, 1821,
who saith, that he was called upon by William
Brittlebank, of Winster, to fight a duel, and that
he wished to avoid doing so. That Edmund
Spencer, of Bakewell, surgeon, came to him on
the 22nd of May, instant, and told him that William
Brittlebank and his brothers were in the
garden waiting for him, and that he, William
Cuddie, must make an apology, or fight. That
he, William Cuddie, went to the garden, and
refused to make an apology. That Edmund
Spencer opened his coat and showed him two
pistols, one of which he took, and William Brittlebank
took the other; that they separated to
the distance of fifteen yards, or more. That
Edmund Spencer threw up his hat as a signal,
and they both fired their pistols as near together
as possible.”
The prisoners read written defences, in which
they declared it to have been their object to
prevent the duel, and procure an apology from
the deceased. A number of persons of high respectability
gave them excellent characters, and
the judge having summed up, the jury, after an
265absence of an hour and twenty minutes, returned
a verdict of “Not guilty,” in favour of the prisoners;
who, deeply affected by their awful situation,
on hearing the decision, which restored
them to society, all bowed their heads, as in gratitude
to the Almighty for their deliverance.
About eleven o’clock, a meeting took place at
Auchtertool, near Balmuto, in Fifeshire, between
Sir Alexander Boswell, of Auchinleck, Bart. eldest
son of James Boswell, the biographer of Dr. Johnson,
and James Stuart, Esq. of Duncarn. Sir
Alexander was attended by the Hon. John Douglas,
brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, and
Mr. Stuart by the Earl of Rosslyn. The ball of
Mr. Stuart struck Sir Alexander in the shoulder,
shattered the shoulder-blade, and was supposed to
have entered the spine, as his limbs were quite
paralysed. Sir Alexander was carried to Balmuto
House, where he expired. The cause of
this duel was a song which appeared in a Glasgow
paper, called the Sentinel, on the 26th of
December, and which Mr. Stuart ascertained to
have been written by Sir Alexander. The manner
in which Mr. Stuart became possessed of that
information was through a person named Borthwick,
concerned in the Sentinel at the time the
266article appeared in that paper. Borthwick delivered
the papers into the hands of Mr. Stuart,
and from these papers the discovery of the author
of the article mentioned, as well as that of others,
was made.
On the 10th of June, the trial of Mr. Stuart,
for the wilful murder of Sir Alexander, took place
in the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh; present,
the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Hermand,
Lord Gillies, Lord Pitmilly, and Lord Succoth.
The indictment having been read, to which Mr.
Stuart pleaded “Not guilty.”
Mr. Cockburn opened the case on the part of
the defender. He stated, that all who knew Sir
Alexander Boswell must be aware that he possessed,
in a very extraordinary degree, the talent
of irony. He then detailed the facts relative to
the establishment of the Beacon and the Sentinel
newspapers, the contributions of the deceased to
those publications, and the manner in which Mr.
Stuart obtained the fatal evidence. He next
dwelt upon the urbanity and peace-making disposition
of Mr. Stuart, and showed that the deceased
had received no provocation from him, to
justify the calumny in which he had indulged
against the accused. Having read the opprobrious
passages of the song, he contended, that those
indignities imposed on Mr. Stuart the necessity
of acting as he had done.
The Earl of Rosslyn deposed to the following
267facts:—At the desire of Mr. Stuart he waited on
Sir Alexander Boswell to ask if he was the author
of the articles in the Glasgow Sentinel. He told
Sir Alexander, that if he would say he was not
the writer, and had not sent them to the newspaper,
that would be sufficient. Sir Alexander said
it was a delicate affair, and he thought he should
consult with a friend. He consulted Mr. Douglas,
who afterwards told witness that he could not
advise Sir Alexander to give any answer. Witness
had copies of a song and a paper, signed
“Ignotus” when he called on Sir Alexander. The
song contained two direct imputations of cowardice.
At the wish of Sir Alexander, who had affairs to
settle, it was agreed between Mr. Douglas and
witness, that a delay of fourteen days should take
place, and that the meeting should be on the Continent.
Witness subsequently asked Mr. Douglas,
if there was not a possibility of not carrying
the affair any further; and told him Mr. Stuart
would be content to treat the song as a very bad
joke, provided Sir Alexander would say he did
not intend any reflection on Mr. Stuart’s courage.
Mr. Douglas said, he had no hope that Sir Alexander
would say any such thing. Sir Alexander
changed his mind about meeting on the Continent;
and it was finally settled that it should
take place at Auchtertool. They met: the
ground was measured twelve long paces. Witness
gave the word: they fired, and Sir Alexander
268Boswell fell. Mr. Stuart advanced with great
anxiety towards Sir Alexander, but witness
hurried him to go away. Before any thing took
place on the ground, Mr. Stuart asked witness if
it was not fit that he should make a bow to Sir
Alexander, and express his wish for a reconciliation.
Witness thought it right. Mr. Stuart advanced
towards Sir Alexander, apparently for that
purpose: Sir Alexander’s back was then turned,
and he appeared to be walking away from Mr.
Stuart. In the whole of Mr. Stuart’s conduct
there was no appearance of personal ill-will or resentment
against Sir Alexander; but only an
anxiety to defend his own character from the
imputations with which it had been assailed, particularly
from that of cowardice. His conduct,
from first to last, was cool, composed, and temperate.
On the field, witness desired him to present
his side and not his bust: Mr. Stuart replied,
“I do not think I ought to take an aim.” Never,
from all his acquaintance with Mr. Stuart, knew
a man less quarrelsome or less vindictive.
Mr. Douglas confirmed Lord Rosslyn’s statement
respecting the interviews and conversations
that had taken place. On their way to the ground
Sir Alexander consulted witness as to firing in
the air or not. Witness said he must consult his
own feelings on that point. Sir Alexander said,
he had, perhaps, in an unhappy moment, injured
Mr. Stuart, and therefore he should fire in the air.
269Witness said that was exactly his opinion. After
Sir Alexander fell, the only words he spoke to
witness were, that he regretted he had not made
his fire in the air more decided than it had been.
On the journey to the ground, a conversation
took place in the carriage, as to the possibility of
an amicable adjustment. Sir Alexander said he
was convinced there was not any: he did not
know whether from an opinion that Mr. Stuart
could do nothing else than fight, or whether from
his own resolution: he rather thought the latter.
Mr. Stuart conducted himself in every respect as
became a man of honour and courage.
Dr. Wood said, he had accompanied Sir Alexander
to the field; he did not see any pistols
fired; he had instructed the other surgeon, that
they ought to turn their backs and not see the
firing, but that as soon as they heard the report
they should turn, and run to the spot as speedily
as possible. The pistols were fired in quick succession:
on going to the spot, they found Sir Alexander
wounded in the shoulder; they extracted
two pieces of bone; the first was extracted by
himself, and the other by Mr. Liston: he accompanied
Sir Alexander to Balmuto House, and
attended him till three the next day; when he
died. In the carriage, on the way to the ground,
Sir Alexander expressed his decided opinion, that
Mr. Stuart could have done nothing else but call
him out. He also declared his intention to fire in
270the air, and on getting out of the carriage he said,
“Now, gentlemen, observe that it is my fixed resolution
to fire in the air.”
Mr. Liston, surgeon, said that Mr. Stuart called
upon him on the morning of the 26th of March,
and requested him to go to the country with him;
and, when on the Fife side, he informed him he
was to fight a duel with Sir Alexander Boswell.
He said he had no malice against Sir Alexander,
and if he had the misfortune to hit him, he wished
it might be on the great toe, as a gentleman in
England had done lately on a similar occasion.
A letter from Sir Alexander Boswell to Robert
Maconochie, Esq. dated the 24th of March, was
put in, containing the following passage:—“Last
night, on my arrival, I received a letter from
Lord Rosslyn, that he wished me to appoint an
hour as early as possible, that he might make a
communication to me; this, I suppose, is in reference
to some of these squibs. I do not know who
the offended party may be; but even if it should
be Mr. James Stuart himself, I shall give him a
meeting. In order, however, to obviate many of
those circumstances which follow such transactions,
I mean that the meeting shall take place
on the Continent, say Calais; and I wish to put
your friendship so far to the test, as to request
you to be my friend on this occasion. If I had
deemed it expedient to meet my man here, John
Douglas would have gone out with me; but if I
271should be the successful shot, I should not like the
after proceedings of our courts of law, and therefore
wish to pass beyond their jurisdiction. I
know nothing of particulars yet, but write in
prudent anticipation. I know this is perhaps the
greatest favour that can be asked of any man;
but by this arrangement you will be implicated
in less trouble, and you won’t mind a trip to
France. If my wish is acceded to, I would propose
the meeting to take place about fifteen days
hence, as I wish to make a slight arrangement respecting
my estate, and legalise it by going to
kirk and market.”—After a number of witnesses
had been examined, who all bore testimony to
Mr. Stuart’s high character for goodness of temper,
kindness of disposition, and honourable and
upright conduct.
The Lord Advocate said, that the charge of
murder, according to law, having been fully
proved, the next question was, what defence had
been set up in behalf of the prisoner. The law
knew of no other ground of exculpation, unless a
justification founded on self-defence; but there
were no circumstances to warrant such an argument
in the present case.
Mr. Jeffrey said, it was not necessary for him
to state, that the essence of all crime lay in the
motive; and, after all they had heard, it could
not be disputed that Mr. Stuart went to the
ground without one atom of malice. They had
272been told, that a duel was an irrational, barbarous,
and pernicious practice; and that he who took
it upon himself to send or accept a challenge was
guilty of murder. He did not mean to offer any
apology for the practice. The evils of duelling were
ever uppermost in our view; but this prevented
us from noticing, that it had proved the corrective
of greater immoralities. It was known by
those versed in history, that it had superseded the
practice of private assassinations. That a person
might not kill another, unless in self-defence,
without incurring the crime of murder, was contrary
to the fact. It might be done in defence of
personal property on a nocturnal assault: a soldier
on sentry, or a constable to prevent a rescue,
might justly kill. And if, in such circumstances,
it is permissible, you place a man in a painful dilemma,
if, when made by the libeller an outcast
of society, exposed to daily insult, shrunk from
by friends, and met with the blushes of relations,
you deprive him of the only means of wiping
away those stains, and vindicating his character
to the world. The analogy of the law, the reason
of the thing, and the feelings of all mankind are
against you. In the short reign of Henry the
Fourth of France, about four thousand persons
were calculated to have fallen in single combat;
while, in our own country, during one of the
longest reigns, that of George the Third, only
sixty or seventy were said to have fallen; a fact
273which showed, that the practice did not prevail to
any alarming extent.
The Lord Justice Clerk then proceeded to detail
the evidence, and to illustrate the law as it
bore on the case in question. It was, he said, his
bounden duty to state to them what the law of
Scotland was, in relation to such an unfortunate
affair as had come before them that day: but
instead of stating the law in his own words, he
would rather lay it before them in the words of
the best authors on criminal law, and the first to
whom he would refer was Sir George Mackenzie,
who had laid it down as clear and decided law,
that killing in a duel was murder, and quoted
several cases in support of this opinion. The
next author to whom he would refer the jury
was Mr. Baron Hume, the standard authority on
criminal law in Scotland. From the quotations
read by the Lord Justice Clerk, it was clear
that Mr. Hume completely coincided with Sir
George Mackenzie as to the ancient practice: Mr.
Hume states, that in later times, some juries had
taken upon them to deliver verdicts of not guilty
in such cases; but he clearly states, that such decisions
were not in conformity to the strict law of
Scotland. Mr. Burnet, also a valuable author,
expressed himself much to the same effect with
the other authors. The law, therefore, on such
matters, he considered to be quite settled. The
indictment charged Mr. Stuart with malice, but
274there was not even an attempt to substantiate
that part of it. On the contrary, it appeared that
he was utterly ignorant who the author of the
calumnies was, before he saw the papers in Glasgow.
The jury would also keep in view the
nature of the offers made by Mr. Stuart, his conduct
in the field, as well as after the sad event;
the contrition he expressed for the fatal blow,
and the total absence of all vindictive feelings on
his part. In the whole course of his practice he
never had heard higher, or more distinct and discriminate
praise bestowed on any character; and,
in good taste, the evidence on this part of the case
consisted of gentlemen, who were opponents to
the prisoner in politics. He lamented, and the
public groaned under, the lamentable licentiousness
of the press: he hoped it would cease.
The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation,
without leaving the box, returned an unanimous
verdict of “Not Guilty.” The Lord Justice Clerk,
then turning to Mr. Stuart, congratulated him
on the favourable result.
On Thursday, the 2nd of May, the following
statement appeared in the evening papers:—“We
are authorised to state, that a meeting took place
this morning between the Duke of Bedford and
275the Duke of Buckingham, accompanied by Lord
Lyndock and Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, in
consequence of words uttered by the former at
the Bedford County Meeting. Both parties fired
together at the distance of twelve paces, on a
word given, but without effect; when the Duke
of Buckingham, observing that the Duke of Bedford
fired into the air, advanced to his Grace, and
remarking, that for that reason the thing could go
no further, said, ‘My Lord Duke, you are the
last man I wish to quarrel with; but you must
be aware, that a public man’s life is not worth
preserving unless with honour.’ Upon which
the Duke of Bedford declared, ‘upon his honour,
that he meant no personal offence to the
Duke of Buckingham, nor to impute to him any
bad or corrupt motive whatever.’ The parties
then shook hands, and the whole business was
terminated most satisfactorily.”
The following are the words used by the Duke
of Bedford at the County Meeting:—“He would
now advert to another transaction which he was
almost ashamed to mention: he alluded to a great
borough proprietor, now a noble duke, whose
services, and the services of whose adherents in
parliament, had been purchased by Government
by conferring high offices on those adherents. It
was an odious thing to mention these circumstances,
but he introduced them for the purpose
of asking whether, if a reform had been effected,
276such transactions could possibly happen? The
noble duke’s family and connections were, of
course, sent back to their constituents, when they
accepted of place; because, when a member of
the House took office, he must return to his constituents,
to know whether they would re-elect
him. But how were the individuals in question
sent back? They were not sent back to the people
of England; they were not sent back to those
who were free to choose or to reject them: no,
they were sent back to the borough proprietor, to
their own patron, to the person who had engaged
in the corrupt traffic; who had, in fact, made the
bargain with Ministers. He would again ask,
could such a circumstance possibly occur, if a reform
were effected in the Commons’ House?”
The Duke of Buckingham addressed a letter to
the Duke of Bedford, demanding whether this
language was used in allusion to him. The
Duke of Bedford answered that it was, and that
he stated the facts because he believed them to be
true. A challenge was, in consequence, sent and
accepted. The duel took place in Kensington
Gardens, at a retired spot previously fixed upon.
The Duke of Bedford left St. James’s-square,
at half-past seven on Thursday morning, accompanied
by Lord Lyndock, and drove directly to
Kensington Gardens; where the Duke of Buckingham
arrived about the same time, attended by
Sir Watkin Williams Wynn.
277
On the 6th of June, after the sitting of the
Chamber of Deputies, Benjamin Constant, the
celebrated French political writer, demanded
satisfaction of M. Forbin des Issarts, for a letter
inserted in the Paris journal, the Quotidienne of
the preceding day. Without any other explanation,
the honourable deputies proceeded on the
following morning to the ground. M. Benjamin
Constant was accompanied by General Sebastiani
and M. Girardin, and M. Forbin des Issarts by
General the Count de Bethisy and Colonel Chemoin.
M. Benjamin Constant being lame, he
and his adversary were placed at ten paces distant
on chairs. They fired together by signal: neither
was hurt, and M. Benjamin Constant appearing
satisfied, the seconds decided that the combat
ought to terminate. According to the French
journals, nothing could exceed the sang-froid that
was manifested by the honourable deputies.
The following account of a fatal duel which
took place in the town of Bagnères, in the department
of Upper Pyrenees, is given in a letter to the
editor of the Journal des Débats, of the 29th of
278July:—“A deplorable event has just taken place
in this town. The unfortunate young Pinac was
interred this day; having been killed in a duel
with an Englishman. The affair did not arise
out of any personal quarrel. The Englishman,
whose name is not known, being in the reading-room
of Frescati, wrote on the margin of a pamphlet
relating to the battle of Toulouse, that
‘Every thing in it was false; that Lord Wellington
had gained a complete victory; and that
the French army was indebted to his generosity
for not having been put to the sword.’ M.
Pinac, a young officer, not in actual service, on
being made acquainted with this circumstance,
called the Englishman to account for having
written these words. The authorities did every
thing in their power to prevent the duel; but
their precautions proved ineffectual, and Pinac,
having received a ball in his belly, died some hours
afterwards.”
In the year 1821, the Neapolitan general,
Carascosa, announced his determination of calling
out Lieutenant-General Pepe, late commander of
the Neapolitan forces. Very shortly after General
Pepe’s arrival in London, which was on the
1st of February, 1823, he received a letter from
General Carascosa, in which that officer, after
279charging General Pepe with conduct injurious to
his reputation, avowed his opinion that military
revolutions were, in all cases, contrary to the
principles of honour; and that any change in the
government of Naples was unnecessary, still less
in that of Spain. The letter concluded with a
challenge in the usual terms. To this letter
General Pepe replied, by declaring his opinion,
that every free state was indebted for its liberty
to military revolution, not excepting even England;
that the Spaniards were now a prey to civil
anarchy, only because certain individuals calling
themselves Liberals were, in fact, hostile to the
constitution of the Cortes; and that he had employed
the authority which his rank and his command
had given him at Naples, to resist the
despotism of a government which, while it rendered
the people miserable, was of no actual
advantage to the reigning dynasty. He concluded
by accepting the challenge.
On the 20th of February, the generals met.
Count Santa Rosa, ex-minister of war of Piedmont,
attended General Pepe, and M. Brunet, a
French gentleman, General Carascosa. The weapons
were swords, and the combatants engaged;
but at the second pass, General Pepe’s sword
snapped short near the guard; upon which the
seconds interfered, and the combat, as is usual in
such cases, was deferred.
A second meeting took place on the 28th of
280February, not far from Kew Bridge. On engaging,
General Carascosa attacked with great impetuosity;
but after several passes on both sides,
General Pepe, seizing his adversary’s sword with
his left hand, disarmed him, and placing the point
of his sword at his breast, had his life in his
power. Here the affair would have terminated,
but General Carascosa, on recovering his sword,
renewed the combat; which was warmly maintained,
until he was finally disabled by a thrust
from General Pepe in the right shoulder. General
Pepe, seeing his adversary incapable of further
defence, declined availing himself of his advantage;
and thus the duel terminated.
The following account of the proceedings taken
by the Superior Court of Law for New Kent
County, in consequence of a projected duel between
Colonel Graves and Captain Lacy, is from
the Virginia Times, of the 23d of May:—The
Superior Court of Law for New Kent County
tried and determined five several presentments,
found by the grand jury against Colonel Richard
Graves, in each of which the defendant was
charged with a violation of the act to suppress
duelling. The case, during the last session of the
legislature, had been laid before that body by
Captain Archibald Lacy, with the view of removing
281Colonel Graves from his seat. The several
presentments charged Richard Graves; first,
with sending a challenge to Archibald Lacy to
fight a duel; second, to fight a duel with poison;
third, with sending a challenge to Archibald Lacy
to fight a duel in the following manner—that two
cups should be filled, the one with pure water
and the other with deadly poison, and that two
tickets should be rolled up and put in a hat, and
they, Graves and Lacy, should draw lots who
should drink the cup of poison; fourth, with sending
a challenge to fight a duel with knives, &c.;
and fifth, for challenging him to draw a lot for a
cup of poison, which cup was to be drunk by the
person to whom the same should fall by allotment.
To these charges the defendant pleaded not
guilty; and the evidence went to establish the
said charges. Verdict, “Not Guilty.”
A duel took place between the Marquis of
Londonderry and Ensign Battier, late a cornet of
the 10th Royal Hussars, in consequence of a letter
which he had published, in reference to his dispute
with the officers of that regiment, in which
he had stated, that the noble lord “sheltered
himself under his rank.” Sir Henry Hardinge,
282Secretary to the Ordnance, was the Marquis’s second,
and the second of Mr. Battier was Colonel
Western. They met at a distance of ten paces.
Sir Henry gave the choice of his pistols to Colonel
Western. The word was given. Lord Londonderry’s
shot passed Mr. Battier on the right;
while Mr. Battler’s pistol missed fire. The marquis
requested his antagonist might have another
shot; but this Colonel Western declined, on the
part of Mr. Battier, and thus the firing ended.
On the 13th of May the following General
Order was issued from the Horse Guards:—“The
Commander-in-chief having received a report
from Lieutenant-General the Marquis of
Londonderry, that his lordship had accepted a
challenge to fight a duel with Ensign Battier,
late a cornet of the 10th Royal Hussars, upon a
point which his lordship considered to be one
of military duty, his Royal Highness has felt it
incumbent upon him to submit to the King a
transaction at variance with the principles of subordination,
and therefore of a tendency injurious
to the discipline of the army. The King has
consequently conveyed to his Royal Highness his
Majesty’s commands, to express his Majesty’s
concern and displeasure, that an officer of Lord
Londonderry’s high rank and military reputation
should have committed himself in personal collision
with an inferior officer, by accepting a challenge
for any supposed aggression proceeding
283from the exercise of his authority as Colonel of the
Regiment.”
The London Gazette of the 18th announced
that the name of Mr. Battier was erased from the
half-pay list of the army.
At the preceding Doncaster races, a Mr. Westall
lost a bet of seventy guineas to Capt. Gourlay,
who also lost a bet at the same time to a friend
of Mr. Westall. Captain Gourlay and Mr. Westall
met at the Bull Inn, Edinburgh, recognising
each other with apparent friendship. After some
conversation, the Captain reminded Mr. Westall
of his bet; which that gentleman acknowledged,
but added, that he was authorised by his friend
to set off the bet which he had won from Captain
Gourlay, against that which he, Mr. Westall, had
lost. An altercation ensuing, the Captain applied
the term swindler to Mr. Westall; who, in return,
called the Captain a liar. On this the Captain,
snatching up the poker, made a blow at Mr.
Westall’s head: the poker missed its aim, but descending
on his shoulder, was snapped in two by
the force of the blow; which, for some minutes,
rendered him insensible. On recovering, Mr.
Westall went into the coffee-room; where, after
much warm language, a meeting was arranged.
284The parties met at South Ferry; and, together
with their seconds, crossed in the boat, and proceeded
to an eminence; where, preliminaries being
adjusted, the parties took their stations, and
Captain Gourlay, receiving Mr. Westall’s ball,
fell dead upon the spot.
At Alnwick, on the 30th of June, after the
close of the election for the county of Northumberland,
at which Mr. Beaumont, Mr. Liddell,
Mr. Bell, and Lord Howick were the candidates,
Mr. Beaumont, while Lord Howick was addressing
the freeholders, advanced and said, “I will
now drag forth, not Lord Howick, but the head
and front of all these proceedings. I accuse Mr.
Lambton of prompting Lord Howick; which I
have seen him do at every sentence of his speech.”
Mr. Lambton declared he had not. Upon which,
Mr. Beaumont called out, “Mr. Lambton, gentlemen,
says it is not the fact; I say it is false.” Mr.
Lambton instantly stepped forward and said, “I
am ready to wave any intention of addressing you
upon a matter relating personally to myself, being
perfectly confident, that what has just occurred
requires a very different answer from any which
it can receive from these hustings, and which, let
Mr. Beaumont be assured, it most certainly shall
285have. Can any one who heard Lord Howick believe
that he wanted any man’s whisper to give
utterance to his sentiments? Whatever may be
Mr. Beaumont’s reasons for his conduct, if he
wishes to engage in a private quarrel, he shall not
be baulked.”
Upon leaving the hustings, Mr. Lambton,
accompanied by the Hon. Charles Grey, retired
to a house, to which all the efforts of his family
to trace him were ineffectual. At length it was
ascertained that he had dispatched Captain Bacon
Grey to Mr. Beaumont, desiring that gentleman
to hold a friend in readiness to receive an immediate
communication from General Grey, for
whom the Hon. Charles Grey had rode off express
to Howick. In less than an hour the
General arrived in Alnwick, and had a conference
with Captain Plunkett, on the part of Mr. Beaumont.
The result was, an appointment for a
hostile meeting at nine o’clock, at the Moor, three
miles from the town. On reaching the ground,
Mr. Lambton did not find Mr. Beaumont; but he
shortly after received a communication from him
by Captain Plunkett, stating that the Captain,
finding Mr. Beaumont beset by a crowd on the
way, had advised him to return, as no doubt the
meeting would be disturbed. They, therefore,
made the best of their way to Belford, North Durham;
from which they passed to a field adjoining
the strand at Bamborough; where, about three in
286the afternoon, and amidst heavy rain, Mr. Lambton
and Mr. Beaumont were placed on the
ground, at a distance of twelve paces, and immediately
exchanged shots, without effect. Captain
Plunkett was preparing to re-load Mr. Beaumont’s
pistol, when General Grey stepped up to
him, and said that enough had been done for the
honour of the parties, and that Mr. Lambton had
never thought of requiring an apology. Captain
Plunkett replied, that his friend was there for the
purpose of giving satisfaction; but that if General
Grey thought proper to withdraw Mr. Lambton,
he, Captain Plunkett, must necessarily withdraw
Mr. Beaumont. Mr. Lambton was then
withdrawn; and here the matter terminated to
the satisfaction, it was believed, of all present,
though not a word passed between the principals.
The following is the official statement signed
by the seconds:—“In consequence of some language
which occurred on the hustings at Alnwick
yesterday, a meeting took place this afternoon
at Bamborough, between John George
Lambton, Esq., M.P., and Thomas Wentworth
Beaumont, Esq., when, after an exchange of
shots, the affair terminated to the satisfaction of
the seconds.—July 1, 1826.”
287
A duel between the Marquis de Livron and M.
Du Trone took place at mid-day, in the forest of
Senart, near the château of Madame de Cayla.
The whole affair had the appearance of an act of
madness, and resembled more a tournament than
a modern duel. M. Du Trone, the young advocate,
was habited in the costume of a Greek
chief: each combatant was mounted on horseback,
and had three seconds. The parties were
armed with sabres, and, on the onset, M. Livron
was dismounted by the concussion of the horses.
Both were slightly wounded, and the seconds then
thought proper to interfere. What adds to the
singularity of this duel is, that it took place in the
presence of a hundred and fifty spectators.
At Dublin, on the 26th of December, Mr. Bric,
the counsellor, fell a victim to false notions of
honour. On the preceding day, he was returning
from the post-office, when the Cork mail
drove up. Mr. Hayes, with other gentlemen,
were talking of the contested election at Cork;
and the majority of Hutchinson over Callaghan
being announced, Mr. Bric said, rather hastily,
that “he rejoiced at the prospect of the defeat of
288that rascal Callaghan;” alluding to his decided
hostility to the claims of the Roman Catholics.
Mr. Hayes, a cousin and active friend of Mr.
Callaghan, looking at Mr. Bric, replied, “Whoever
calls Mr. Callaghan a rascal is a scoundrel
and liar.” He then handed his card to Mr. Bric,
who returned his own. On the following morning,
at half-past seven, they met in a field near
the Broadstone, at Phibsborough, on the north
side of the town. The ground being measured,
the combatants took their position. Mr. Bric was
previously observed to shake hands with several
of his friends, the sight of whom agitated him
a little. He mistook the signal “present” for
“fire,” and for an instant elevated his pistol; but,
discovering his mistake, again dropped it, and
apologized for having been premature. The signal
was given immediately afterwards. Mr. Bric
fired: his ball entered the earth, and after drawing
the trigger, he wheeled round and threw up
his left arm, thereby exposing his person to his
adversary’s fire. Mr. Hayes’s ball entered Mr.
Bric’s left side, and, passing through his body
came out under his left arm. He reeled, dropped
his pistol, and went down gently. He at first
was not conscious of the extent of his danger, and
said rather calmly, he hoped the wound would
not prove serious. The surgeons, however, on
examining it, pronounced it fatal; and he expired
in less than an hour. Mr. Bric was a native of
289Tralee. In 1819, he came to England, and attached
himself, in quality of reporter, to one of
the London daily journals. On his return to
Dublin in 1824, he was called to the bar, and
almost immediately took a leading part in the
agitation of the Roman Catholic question.
The following duel took place near Paris. A
student of pharmacy, named Goulard, while
playing at billiards, quarreled with a young
medical student of the name of Caire. Their
mutual friends having in vain tried every means
of persuasion to prevent the consequences of the
dispute, accompanied the young men without the
walls of Paris. Goulard seemed disposed to submit
to an arrangement, but Caire absolutely refused.
The seconds measured the ground, and the
first shot having been won by Goulard, he fired,
and Caire fell down dead. Goulard did not appear
during the prosecution; he continued absent
on the day fixed for judgment, and the court,
conformably to the code of criminal proceedings,
pronounced on the charge, without the intervention
of a jury. It acquitted Goulard of premeditation;
but condemned him, for contumacy, to
perpetual hard labour, and to be branded.
290
In consequence of the part which the Duke of
Wellington took, as Minister of the country, in
bringing in the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, the
Earl of Winchilsea, who was strongly opposed to
the measure, addressed a letter, on the 14th of
March, to the Secretary of the Committee for
establishing the King’s College, London, which
contained the following passage:—
“I was one of those who, at first, thought the
proposed plan might be practicable, and prove an
antidote to the principles of the London University.
I was not, however, very sanguine in my
expectations, seeing many difficulties likely to
arise in the execution of the suggested arrangement;
and I confess that I felt rather doubtful as
to the sincerity of the motives that had actuated
some of the prime movers in this undertaking,
when I considered that the noble Duke at the
head of his Majesty’s Government had been induced,
on this occasion, to assume a new character,
and to step forward himself as the public advocate
of religion and morality. Late political
events have convinced me, that the whole transaction
was intended as a blind to the Protestant
and high-church party; that the noble Duke,
who had, for some time previous to that period,
291determined upon ‘breaking in upon the constitution
of 1688,’ might the more effectually, under
the cloak of some outward show of zeal for the
Protestant religion, carry on his insidious designs
for the infringement of our liberties, and the
introduction of Popery into every department
of the state.”
This letter was published in the newspapers,
and gave rise to the following correspondence:—
(1.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA.
“London, March 16, 1829.
“My Lord,
“I have just perused, in the Standard newspaper
of this day, a letter addressed to Henry
Nelson Coleridge, Esq., dated Eastwell Park,
March 14, signed Winchilsea and Nottingham;
and I shall be very much obliged to your lordship
if you will let me know whether that letter
was written by you, and published by your authority.
I am, &c.
Wellington.”
(2.) FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.
“London, March 18, 1829.
“My Lord,
“I wrote to your lordship, on the 16th, a
letter, of which I enclose a duplicate, as, not
having yet received an answer from your lordship,
I am apprehensive that the original may
not have reached you, although I directed it to
292your house in Suffolk Street. I am just going
to Windsor to attend his Majesty, but I shall
be in town this night.
I am, &c.
“Wellington.”
(3.) FROM THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
“Eastwell Park, March 18, 1829.
“My Lord,
“The enclosed is a copy of the answer which
I returned, by this day’s post, to your grace’s
letter, which only reached me this morning. I
intend leaving this place for London to-morrow
morning, and expect to be at 7, Suffolk Street,
between four and five in the afternoon. I have, &c.
“Winchilsea and Nottingham.”
(4.) FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.
“Eastwell Park, Ashford, March 18, 1829.
“My Lord,
“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of your grace’s letter of the 16th instant,
and I beg to inform you that the letter addressed
to H. N. Coleridge, Esq. was inserted in the
Standard by my authority. As I had publicly
given my approbation and sanction to the establishment
of the King’s College, London, last
year, by his Grace the Duke of Wellington’s
becoming a subscriber to it, I thought it incumbent
upon me, in withdrawing my name,
also publicly to state my reasons for so doing.
“I have, &c.
Winchilsea and Nottingham.”
293(5.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA.
“London, March 19.
“My Lord,
“I have had the honour of receiving your
lordship’s letter of the 18th instant. Your lordship
is certainly the best judge of the mode
to be adopted of withdrawing your name from
the list of subscribers to the King’s College. In
doing so, however, it does not appear necessary
to impute to me, in no measured terms, disgraceful
and criminal motives for my conduct
in the part which I took in the establishment
of the college. No man has a right, whether
in public or in private, by speech, or in writing,
or in print, to insult another, by attributing
to him motives for his conduct, public or private,
which disgrace or criminate him. If a gentleman
commits such an act indiscreetly, in the
heat of debate, or in a moment of party violence,
he is always ready to make reparation to him
whom he may thus have injured. I am convinced
that your lordship will, upon reflection,
be anxious to relieve yourself from the pain of
having thus insulted a man who never injured
or offended you.
I have, &c.
“Wellington.”
Sir Henry Hardinge delivered No. 5. to the
Earl of Winchilsea, and was referred by his
294lordship to the Earl of Falmouth. The following
memorandum is the substance of the communication
made by Sir Henry Hardinge to Lord
Falmouth.
(6.) MEMORANDUM OF SIR HENRY HARDINGE.
“March 19, 8 o’clock, evening.
“Lord Falmouth having expressed a desire to
know the extent of reparation that would be
expected, two suggestions, of what appeared to
Sir Henry Hardinge to be the most natural mode
of reparation, were drawn out, upon the distinct
understanding that they were not made with a
view to confine Lord Winchilsea’s explanation,
either as to the terms or manner therein stated,
but as suggestions as to the course which might
be pursued in bringing the matter to a satisfactory
conclusion. Sir Henry Hardinge, therefore,
on the part of the Duke of Wellington, expects
one of the two following alternatives:—Either
that Lord Winchilsea should forthwith write
to the Secretary of the King’s College, and express
his desire to withdraw his public letter, as
one which attributed motives highly offensive to
the Duke of Wellington, and stating also that,
upon reflection, he was not justified in attributing
such motives to his grace, and therefore expresses
his regret at having done so; or, that
Lord Winchilsea should write directly to the
Duke of Wellington himself, and make the same
295acknowledgments to his grace, with a similar expression
of his regret for having attributed motives
highly offensive to his grace, relating to
the occasion of his grace having presided at the
meeting of the King’s College in ——, last, ——
[which motives he is now sensible he was not
justified in imputing to his grace]. In either
case, it is expected that a letter, so written,
should be published by the Secretary of the
London College in the Standard, being the same
paper as that which contained Lord Winchilsea’s
original letter.
“Thursday, half past nine o’clock, evening.”
“Friday morning, March 20. The paragraph
within crotchets was not desired to be retained
in the last interview with Lord Falmouth last
night.
H. H.”
(7.) MEMORANDUM OF LORD WINCHILSEA.
“March 19.
“Whether I may determine to give an explanation
of my letter published in the Standard
on Monday last, will depend upon the correctness
of my belief that I had grounds for the
opinions complained of by the noble duke, as
therein supposed. I am ready to allow that I
was mistaken in my view of the noble duke’s conduct,
as expressed in my letter to Mr. Coleridge,
on the 14th instant, and to state my regret at having
296so expressed it, provided the noble duke will
state on his part, that at the time he came forward
to preside at the meeting for the establishment
of King’s College, London, he did not contemplate
the measures which are now in progress
for Roman Catholic emancipation; or, to use Mr.
Peel’s words, ‘for breaking in upon the constitution
of 1688;’ but without some statement
to that effect from the noble duke, I cannot
withdraw the expressions contained in the above
letter.
Winchilsea.”
(8.) MEMORANDUM OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
“London, March 20, 1829, in the morning.
“Sir Henry Hardinge has read me a memorandum
written by Lord Winchilsea, and delivered
to him by Lord Falmouth, from which
it appears that his lordship is anxious that I
should justify myself from the charges against
me contained in his lordship’s address to Mr.
Coleridge, published in the Standard newspaper.
I may lament that a nobleman for whom I feel
the highest respect, entertains a bad opinion of
me; but I do not complain, so long as that
opinion is not brought before me. I cannot
admit that any man has a right to call me before
him to justify myself from the charges which
his fancy may suggest. That of which I complain
is, that the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham should
297have published an opinion, that
I was actuated by disgraceful and criminal motives
in a certain transaction which took place
nearly a year ago. His lordship, unprovoked,
has insulted me by stating in writing, and authorising
the publication of, this opinion. For
this insult I believed, and am not willing to
part with the belief, that his lordship will be
anxious to give me reparation.
W.”
(9.) MEMORANDUM OF SIR HENRY HARDINGE.
“Friday, March 20.
“Sir Henry Hardinge delivered to Lord Falmouth
a memorandum, on the 20th of March,
from the Duke of Wellington, in reply to one
from Lord Winchilsea last night; in the latter
of which it was proposed, as a preliminary to
any explanation, that the Duke of Wellington
should disclaim having contemplated the intentions
attributed to his grace by Lord Winchilsea,
which mode of reparation was considered
inadmissible. In the memorandum of the Duke
of Wellington, his grace states that his cause of
complaint is in the publication of opinions highly
offensive to him. Whenever, therefore, any
terms or mode of reparation, which Lord Winchilsea
may be disposed to offer, are communicated
to Sir Henry Hardinge, he will make them
known to the Duke of Wellington, and inform
298Lord Winchilsea whether they are satisfactory
or not.
Henry Hardinge.
“N.B. The original of this delivered to Lord Falmouth.”
(10.) MEMORANDUM OF THE EARL OF FALMOUTH.
“March 20, one o’clock.
“Out of respect for the Duke of Wellington,
Lord Falmouth has taken to Lord Winchilsea
the Duke of Wellington’s memorandum, put into
his hands by Sir Henry Hardinge this morning
at the War-office, with Sir Henry’s own note
thereon. In reply, Lord Winchilsea does not
feel himself in a situation to comply with the
expectation therein expressed, as to the withdrawal
of his public letter. Lord Winchilsea,
therefore, desires that Lord Falmouth will decline
so doing on his (Lord W’s) behalf.
“Falmouth.”
(11.) FROM SIR H. HARDINGE TO LORD FALMOUTH.
“21st March, two o’clock.
“My Lord,
“I feel it to be my duty, before I make a
final communication to your lordship, to ascertain,
beyond the possibility of a doubt, that Lord
Winchilsea declines to give the reparation which
the Duke of Wellington considers himself entitled
to receive. I am, my lord, your obedient
servant.
Henry Hardinge.”
299(12.) FROM LORD FALMOUTH TO SIR HENRY HARDINGE.
“London, March 20, 1829, half past three, P.M.
“Sir,
“In reply to your note, stating that you wish
to ascertain positively whether Lord Winchilsea
declines to give the reparation which the Duke
of Wellington considers himself entitled to receive,
I feel myself unable to say more than to
refer you to the note which I delivered to you,
as signed by him, in answer to the Duke of
Wellington’s memorandum of this day; and that
if by the word ‘reparation,’ any withdrawal of
Lord Winchilsea’s public letter, or expression of
regret for its contents, be expected, he does not
feel himself in a situation to comply with such
expectation. I am, sir, your obedient humble
servant,
Falmouth.”
(13.) FROM SIR HENRY HARDINGE TO THE EARL OF FALMOUTH.
“11, Whitehall Place, March 20, 1829.
“My Lord,
“I send your lordship a letter from the Duke
of Wellington to Lord Winchilsea. I communicated
to his grace the note of three, P.M., declining
on Lord W.’s part to make any reparation,
or give any explanation, &c. of his lordship’s conduct
towards the Duke of Wellington; and, in
order to avoid the possibility of any mistake, I
repeat what has already been verbally arranged
300between us, that the Duke of Wellington will be
at the place appointed at eight o’clock to-morrow
morning.
H. Hardinge.”
(14.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO LORD WINCHILSEA.
“London, March 20, half-past six, P.M.
“My Lord,
“Sir Henry Hardinge has communicated to me
a memorandum, signed by your lordship, dated
one, P.M., and a note from Lord Falmouth, dated
three, P.M. Since the insult, unprovoked on my
part, and not denied by your lordship, I have
done every thing in my power to induce your
lordship to make me reparation, but in vain.
Instead of apologising for your own conduct,
your lordship has called upon me to explain
mine. The question for me now to decide is
this—Is a gentleman, who happens to be the
King’s minister, to submit to be insulted by any
gentleman who thinks proper to attribute to him
disgraceful or criminal motives for his conduct as
an individual? I cannot doubt of the decision
which I ought to make on this question. Your
lordship is alone responsible for the consequences,
I now call upon your lordship to give me that
satisfaction for your conduct which a gentleman
has a right to require, and which a gentleman
never refuses to give. I have the honour, &c.
“Wellington.”
301(15.) FROM LORD FALMOUTH TO SIR HENRY HARDINGE.
“London, March 20, 1829, half-past eleven, P.M.
“Sir,
“When I received the favour of your note,
with its enclosure, soon after eight o’clock this
evening, I had just sat down to dinner, and being
in company I could not read it without exciting
some suspicion, till some time afterwards. I had
then to find Lord Winchilsea. All which I mention
in excuse for delay, in case you should think
it of importance; but I apprehend that, after an
arrangement made before five o’clock this afternoon,
his grace’s letter to Lord Winchilsea, calling
upon him for satisfaction in the usual way,
was meant merely as a customary form on such
occasions. All matters will take place of course
to-morrow morning at eight o’clock, according to
that arrangement. I have the honour to be, &c.
“Falmouth.”
(16.) FROM LORD WINCHILSEA TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
“Suffolk-street, Friday night, eleven, P.M.
“My Lord,
“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of your grace’s note. I have already had occasion
to communicate to your grace, that, under existing
circumstances, I did not feel myself in a
situation to comply with what was required of
me in regard to my public letter. The satisfaction
302which your grace has demanded, it is of
course impossible for me to decline. I have the
honour to be, &c.
“Winchilsea.”
The Duke of Wellington and the Earl of
Winchilsea met at the place appointed (Battersea
fields), on the following morning. The parties
having taken their ground. Lord Winchilsea received
the Duke of Wellington’s fire, and fired
in the air. After some discussion, the accompanying
memorandum was delivered by Lord Falmouth
to Sir Henry Hardinge, and accepted by
Sir Henry, as a satisfactory reparation to the
Duke of Wellington:—
“Having given the Duke of Wellington the
usual satisfaction for the affront he conceived
himself to have received from me, through my
public letter of Monday last, and having thus
placed myself in a different situation from that in
which I stood when his grace communicated with
me, through Sir Henry Hardinge and Lord Falmouth,
on the subject of that letter, before the
meeting took place, I do not now hesitate to
declare, of my own accord, that, in apology, I
regret having individually published an opinion
which the noble duke states, in his memorandum
of yesterday, to have charged him with disgraceful
303and criminal motives in a certain transaction
which took place nearly a year ago. I also declare
that I shall cause this expression of regret
to be inserted in the Standard newspaper, as the
same channel through which the letter in question
was given to the public.”
A copy of the preceding correspondence having
been sent by Sir Henry Hardinge to the evening
papers of the same day, the following memorandum
was published by Lord Falmouth on Monday
the 22nd:—
“Lord Falmouth first became concerned in
the affair between the Duke of Wellington and
Lord Winchilsea shortly before he met Sir Henry
Hardinge on the subject, on the evening of Thursday,
the 19th. Until that time, Lord Falmouth
knew nothing whatever either of the previous
correspondence, or of the publication which had
led to it, beyond having seen the letter in the
Standard newspaper. It may seem material to
state, that when Sir Henry called upon Lord Falmouth,
at twelve o’clock at night, with the proposal
to omit the words affixed to No. 6 in parenthesis,
it was after Lord Winchilsea’s answer,
No. 7, had been shown to the Duke of Wellington.
This point is not quite clear in the publication
of Saturday. Immediately after Lord Winchilsea
had received his grace’s fire, and had fired
304in the air, Lord Falmouth was the first to propose
satisfactory reparation for Lord Winchilsea’s publication
of his opinion in the Standard newspaper.
Lord Falmouth distinctly declared on
the ground, that it never was a question with
him whether that publication was wrong, but
merely whether Lord Winchilsea was in a situation
honourably to subscribe to the terms proposed,
after he (Lord Falmouth) was requested
to undertake the business. Before the parties
took their ground. Lord Falmouth delivered a
sealed letter, which he had received from Lord
Winchilsea on Friday night, to Sir Henry Hardinge,
who returned it after the affair had been
settled.”
A duel, attended with a fatal result, took place
at Boulogne, on the 1st of April, between Captain
Helsham and Lieutenant Crowther. It arose
out of an objection made by the former to the
admission of the latter to a club established at
Boulogne. The objection was, that the lieutenant
had been assaulted in England, and had not
behaved like an officer or a gentleman, by challenging
the assaulter. The lieutenant demanded
an apology: this the captain refusing to make,
a duel ensued, and Lieutenant Crowther fell.
305On the 8th of October 1830, Captain Helsham
was tried, by a special commission, at the Old
Bailey, on a charge of murder, under the Act of
the 9th of George IV., in which it is provided,
“that if any of his Majesty’s subjects should be
charged in this country with the murder or manslaughter
of any fellow-subject on land abroad,
and beyond his Majesty’s prerogative, it should
be lawful, although such murder or manslaughter
be in a foreign land, to try such party accused of
either of these offences in England.”
Mr. William Coksley, a resident at Boulogne,
gave the following evidence:—“I saw the parties
on the ground. There were many individuals
present. Mr. Malony put a pistol into Lieutenant
Crowther’s hand, who soon after fired it off. I
observed Captain Helsham’s arm raised; and after
some short time his pistol was fired, and Lieutenant
Crowther fell. The ball had passed through
his neck; he never spoke afterwards, and died
within half an hour. Captain Helsham walked
off the ground immediately, having told his servant
to take his pistols home.”
Mr. Malony, an officer of the 5th Dragoon
Guards, who acted as second to the deceased,
said:—“The deceased consulted me, as a friend,
on the 31st of March, respecting something that
affected his character. In consequence of what
he told me, I went to Holt’s hotel to meet Mr.
Grady; but before I saw him, Colonel Conway
306and Captain Helsham came to me. The captain
said, that Lieutenant Crowther was not a fit
person for him to apologize to, or to fight; and
he assigned as a reason for it, that he had been
horsewhipped, and had not resented it as a gentleman
and an officer ought to do. I told him,
that Lieutenant Crowther assured me, upon his
honour, it was false; and I solicited him to make
an apology. Colonel Conway asked me, whether
I came to deliver a hostile message? I replied,
I came there the messenger of peace; and I
renewed my endeavours to prevail on the captain
to apologize. Upon which the prisoner said:
‘An apology, sir! nonsense!’ At length, I delivered
a message, that, if he would not apologize,
Mr. Crowther expected he would meet him in the
field. After some further conversation, the captain
said: ‘Well, I give him warning. I am
ready to meet him, but I will make it an affair of
business.’ After this, Mr. Grady and myself
made an arrangement for the parties to meet the
next day at eleven, at Napoleon’s column. I
accompanied Lieutenant Crowther to the spot.
A number of individuals, a dozen at least, both
on horseback and foot, were present. Mr. Grady
said that the captain would have no firing, unless
it was separate. We then proceeded to arrange
the manner in which the duel was to be fought.
The captain was in the ditch with us, when we
were loading the pistols. I observed to him, that
307this was contrary to all duelling usage. He said,
he did not care a damn for the usage; he would
see them loaded. The distance agreed upon was
twelve paces. The parties were to stand with
their pistols even down by their sides, until Mr.
Grady pronounced the words, ‘Now, gentlemen!’
and on those words being pronounced they were
to raise their arms, and fire as nearly together as
possible, and no second aim was to be taken. The
parties were then placed. Mr. Grady pronounced
the signal loud enough for both to hear. Lieutenant
Crowther immediately raised his arm with
rather a quick motion, fired, and then lowered
his arm. Captain Helsham did not fire till some
time after. Not hearing the report of his pistol
immediately after that of Lieutenant Crowther, I
looked about, and observed the captain’s pistol
pointed towards his opponent in a position that,
had he fired, the ball would have fallen short, his
arm not being fully raised. He leaned his head
to the right to get a good view of the lieutenant,
raised his arm gradually, and did not fire for some
seconds, until he had fairly covered his man; that
is, got his pistol in a direction to him, and was
looking along it. He appeared to take a deliberate
aim. He fired, and Mr. Crowther fell.
The ball passed through his neck.”
For the defence it was urged, that there had
been no animosity on the part of the prisoner;
who had only obeyed the laws of society, according
308to the best of his judgment. The circumstances
of the duel had been examined by the
authorities at Boulogne, who considered that it
had been fairly fought, and had therefore liberated
him. Colonel Conway stated, that he had
said, in a conversation with Mr. Malony, that it
was a pity two young men should fight upon a
matter of so little importance; to which the latter
had replied, that if Captain Helsham refused a
meeting, he should be posted in the town, and
publicly horsewhipped. The captain came out
of the room at the time, and heard the observation.
After a number of respectable witnesses
had given the prisoner an excellent character for
kindness, generosity, and humanity.
Mr. Justice Bayley charged the jury. They
must first, he said, be satisfied that both the prisoner
and the deceased were natural-born subjects
of this realm; secondly, they must be quite certain
that the deceased was killed by the hand of
the prisoner; and thirdly, that the prisoner had
so acted as to be guilty of the crime of murder.
Intentionally using means calculated to produce
death, if that result ensued, did most undoubtedly
constitute the crime of murder. With regard to
the present case, it appeared, beyond all doubt, that
it had arisen out of a duel. Now, he was bound
as a lawyer to tell the jury, that, if parties went
out to fight a duel, and death was the result of
that meeting, the surviving parties were equally
309guilty of the crime of murder, whether fair or
foul means had been used. If they found the
prisoner guilty, they might accompany their
verdict with any recommendation they thought
proper.—The jury, having remained out of court
for the space of about twenty minutes, returned
with a verdict, finding the prisoner “Not guilty.”
This day, a duel, which terminated fatally, was
fought in Battersea fields, between Mr. Lambrecht,
who had formerly served as a lieutenant
in the 43rd regiment, in America and at Waterloo,
and Mr. Oliver Clayton, a literary gentleman
from Ireland. Before daylight, Mr. Clayton
proceeded with his second, Mr. Bigley, to Battersea
fields, where Mr. Lambrecht and his second.
Lieutenant Cox, were waiting his arrival. It was
a little after six when all the parties took the
ground. After a short conversation, the signal
being given, the pistols were fired; and Mr. Lambrecht’s
ball passing through Mr. Clayton’s body,
he immediately fell. He was conveyed to the
Red House, where he died at seven in the evening.
The quarrel took place at Wood’s hotel,
Panton Square, during a discussion respecting
the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, of which
the deceased, who had renounced that faith,
had been a warm opponent. During the discussion,
310Mr. Lambrecht called him a hypocrite;
and this led to the duel. The jury who sat
on the body brought in a verdict of “Wilful
murder” against Mr. Lambrecht, the principal,
and Lieutenant Cox and Mr. Bigley, the seconds;
and the coroner’s warrant was issued for their
apprehension. On Wednesday, the 13th, Mr.
Lambrecht, who had surrendered himself, was
brought to Union Hall for examination. After
the duel, the unhappy man returned to town; but
withdrew from his usual residence, fearing that
he should be discovered, and wandered about the
streets for three nights. On Tuesday evening, being
quite exhausted, he went into a public-house,
where he drank to excess, and then gave himself
up to a police-officer. After making the statement
which will hereafter be given, Mr. Chambers, the
magistrate, told him that it was a most serious
business, and that he must prepare himself for
the worst, as the law would be carried to the
fullest extent. The parties were all committed
to prison, to take their trial for the offence.
The said trial took place at Kingston assizes,
on the 2nd of April, before Mr. Justice Bayley.
After Mr. Gurney had stated the case, Mr. Thomas
Powell, surgeon at Battersea, gave the following
evidence:—“On the morning of the 8th of
January last, I received a communication which
induced me to go out shortly before seven o’clock.
I went to the back of the Red House, Battersea,
311and found there but three persons, one of them
lying on a board, wounded, with a coat or cloak
over him. The wounded gentleman was taken
into the house, and laid on a bed. I found him
wounded on the right side of the belly. It was a
small wound, into which I could have passed the
point of my finger. There was a wound also on
the left side. There was nothing to enable me to
say it was a gun-shot wound, had I not known
it from other circumstances; but it might have
been produced by a bullet passing through the
body. I immediately pronounced it to be a mortal
wound. My answer to the inquiry of the
wounded gentleman was, that it must prove mortal.
He asked me, how long I thought it probable
he might survive. I told him I could not
speak positively, but I should suppose he could not
survive more than twelve hours. The wounded
gentleman, who told me his name was Clayton,
requested that a clergyman of the Church of
England might be sent for. The clergyman
came, and I went into another room. I returned
shortly after, when he begged that there might
be no prosecution, and said that every thing had
been conducted fairly and honourably, and that
he was to blame, in being so obstinate as to refuse
the apology which had been offered to him. At
this time he was aware he could not live. About
two hours before he died he desired that certain
persons might be written to, and that it might be
312stated to them, that part of the quarrel was his
being called a hypocrite. I asked him by whom.
The answer was, ‘By the man who shot me,
Lambrecht.’”
Thomas Skinner was next examined.—“I work
for the landlord of the Red House; and about
half-past six o’clock on the morning of the 8th of
January, when going to my work, I saw the flash
of two pistols at one and the same time, and I
heard the reports of both. I was nearly three
hundred yards distant. I turned my back towards
them, and one of the bullets appeared to pass me.
When I went towards the place where the firing
was, I saw four men bringing up a man on a
board. They asked me if the house was open.
I told them it was not, and they desired me to
knock the people up. I did so; and then they
brought the wounded gentleman up, and placed
him in the house. He groaned very much, and
said, ‘Don’t shake me.’”
Several other witnesses were examined; and
the following statement, signed by the prisoner,
was put in and read:—
“The prisoner, Richard William Lambrecht,
being cautioned by the magistrates to be careful
of what he said, and to offer nothing to criminate
himself, said, ‘What I state is the whole truth. I
was acquainted with Mr. Clayton. I saw him receive
a horse-whipping, which he did not resent.
I mentioned it to Mr. Clayton on Christmas evening,
313and after that he sent me a message, to which
I returned another by Mr. Odell. Another person,
nearly a fortnight after, took it up, and was
my friend in the business. After that, the meeting
took place; and Mr. Byrne, when on the
ground, came up to me, and said, ‘Is it come to
this?’ and I said, that I would make a written
apology to no man. After the business took
place, I went up to Mr. Clayton and shook hands
with him, and he said, ‘I forgive you, my dear
friend; I forgive you.’ The message to me by
Mr. Odell was from Mr. Clayton; but Mr. Odell
advised Mr. Clayton not to fight, refused to have
anything to do with it, and was not on the
ground. I offered an apology through my friend.
I said, I regretted what had taken place; that
the words were uttered in a moment of intemperance,
and that I was willing to apologize;
which was refused by the other party. I sent
this message through my friend. The answer I
received was, that it must proceed, as nothing
would be taken but a written apology. As far as
I know about the business, both our pistols went
off at the same time. It was a chance shot, as it
was dark, and we could not see.”
Several witnesses were then called, who had
long known the prisoners, and described them as
persons of a humane and peaceable disposition.
Mr. Justice Bayley summed up, and closed his
observations on the evidence with telling the jury
314that the question for them to decide was, by what
means did Mr. Clayton come by his death? If
they were of opinion that he came by his death
by a bullet from the pistol of Mr. Lambrecht, and
that Mr. Lambrecht met him on the ground with
the intention, if the difference could not be settled,
of putting his life against Mr. Clayton’s, and
Mr. Clayton’s against his, he was bound, as a
lawyer and a judge, to tell them, that Mr. Lambrecht
was guilty of the crime of wilful murder,
and that they were bound to find him guilty of
that crime under the present indictment.—With
respect to the prisoner Cox, Lambrecht’s second,
however desirous he might have been for a reconciliation,
and however he might have expected
that an apology would be accepted, still, if he
allowed himself to continue on the ground when
he found that reconciliation was hopeless, and
acted on the occasion as a second, he must be considered
as aiding and abetting in that transaction;
which, in the case of Lambrecht, amounted to
the crime of wilful murder.—Then, with respect
to the prisoner Bigley, Mr. Clayton’s second, he
acted as a go-between, and no other person was
there on the part of Mr. Clayton. What, then,
was the common purpose of the parties at the
time, and was Bigley aiding and abetting? If
the common purpose was, that the life of Lambrecht
and Clayton should be respectively put in
hazard, then Bigley was as much aiding and
315abetting as Cox. The learned Judge concluded
by telling the jury to take the case into their careful
consideration; and if they were satisfied that
Mr. Clayton came to his death by the shot of
Lambrecht in the duel, and that Cox and Bigley
were aiding and abetting on that occasion, they
must find, or at least ought to find, a verdict of
guilty.
The jury, after deliberating in the box for a
few minutes, expressed a wish to retire. Before
they went out, one of them said, they wished to
know whether they might return a verdict of
guilty generally, or whether they must say guilty
of murder? Mr. Justice Bayley told them, that if
there had been any circumstances in the case to
reduce the crime to manslaughter, he should have
stated them for their consideration; but he had
found none. The juryman who had asked the
question said, that the object of it was, to know
whether they might find a verdict of manslaughter.
The jury, after deliberating three hours and
a half, returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”
At the Commission Court, in Dublin, on the
21st of August, Captain Smith and Captain Markham,
of the 32d regiment of Foot, were tried for
killing Standish O’Grady, Esq. in a duel. Mr.
316North stated the case for the prosecution. The
late Mr. O’Grady, a young gentleman of about
twenty-eight years of age, and a member of the
bar, had, on the 17th of March, ordered his horse,
for the purpose of driving out and taking his
morning exercise. He was riding up Nassau
Street, towards Merrion Square, when he met a
cabriolet with Captain Smith and Captain Markham
in it. Mr. O’Grady was riding on the left-hand
side, which is adjacent to the wall of the
College park. There was a carriage on the other
side of the street, which narrowed the way the
cabriolet should pass, and brought it near the wall,
by which Mr. O’Grady was riding. It pressed
so near that side, that, in trying to pass it, he
was obliged to put his horse on the pathway. In
the attempt, the horse missed his footing, and he
feared would have fallen and thrown him; and he
leaned forward to right himself in the saddle.
He had in his hand a small whip; and, in pressing
forward, it struck the head of the cabriolet. In
this collision, Mr. O’Grady did not say one word
to the gentlemen in it. The horse recovered its
footing, and he his seat; and he went on at a
gentle walk. The gentlemen in the cabriolet drew
up as suddenly as its rapid motion would permit;
and Captain Smith having jumped out of it, with
the gig-whip in his hand, overtook Mr. O’Grady a
little beyond Morrison’s Hotel. He did not call
him; he did not expostulate with him; but he
317struck him on the back repeatedly, with great
violence,—not once or twice, but many times.
When he turned, he saw Captain Smith running
back to his cabriolet. He asked him, who he was?
Captain Smith said, he knew him well; but, on
the question being repeated, he said, “Captain
Smith, of the 32d regiment.” Mr. O’Grady rode
to his father’s house, and sought for a military
friend, Lieutenant Macnamara, of the 8th Hussars;
who, in the course of the day, had an interview
with Captain Smith, and Captain Markham,
who acted as his friend. The meeting took place
at six o’clock in the morning. It was understood,
that no persons were to be on the ground but the
principals and their seconds. Captain Markham
acquainted Mr. O’Grady, that the signal to be
given was, “Ready!—fire!” When the arrangements
were completed, the principals came into
the field, at a signal to that effect, and took their
places on the ground. The pistols were placed in
their hands, while Captain Markham and Lieutenant
Macnamara stood by as seconds. Captain
Markham then gave the first signal; but, from
whatever cause, he did not give it in the terms
fixed on. He said, “Gentlemen, are you ready?”
or, “Are you ready, gentlemen?” Mr. O’Grady
conceived the words were to be, “Ready!—fire!”
and that this was a preliminary inquiry. Captain
Smith, however, did not labour under this mistake:
he levelled his pistol, and covered Mr.
318O’Grady for a few seconds. Mr. O’Grady, perceiving
his antagonist prepared, raised his pistol;
but, before he had levelled it. Captain Markham,
whose eye was upon him, gave the signal. Captain
Smith fired, and Mr. O’Grady fell. He lived
till about three o’clock on the following day, when
he expired.
Evidence was adduced in corroboration of the
above statement. The jury returned a verdict,
finding both prisoners guilty of manslaughter;
and they were sentenced to be imprisoned in the
gaol of Kilmainham for the space of twelve months.
The announcement of the sentence was received
with cheers from some parts of the court. Captain
Smith, who, during the latter part of the trial, had
evinced considerable emotion, as soon as the sentence
was pronounced, clapped his hands to his
forehead, and in an agony exclaimed, “Oh God!
my God! take my life! Is it come to this?”
Then, throwing himself into Captain Markham’s
arms, he cried, “Oh Markham! my dear Frederick,
have I brought you to this? Oh! I wish
to God they would take my life! Shame and
disgrace, and every thing else, have come upon
me!” The unfortunate gentleman then covered
his face with his handkerchief, and burst into
tears. Judge Vandeleur added, that, in passing
the sentence, he ought, perhaps, to have said, that
the conduct of the prisoners, when in the field,
was such as to leave no stain upon their character.
319
In the August of this year, the following most
savage “affair of honour” took place near Philadelphia.
A challenge was sent by a Dr. Smith to
a Dr. Jeffries, and, being accepted, the parties met.
The distance fixed upon was only eight paces; at
which they exchanged shots, without either of
them receiving any injury. Some efforts were
then made by their friends to bring about an accommodation,
but unavailingly; as Dr. Jeffries
declared that he would not leave the ground until
he had lost his own life or taken that of his antagonist.
Pistols were then handed to them a
second time, and at this fire the right arm of Dr.
Smith was broken, which delayed the proceedings
for a few moments, until he recovered from the
exhaustion; when he declared, that, as he was
wounded, he was ready to die, and requested the
seconds to proceed. The pistols were then put
into their hands a third time, Dr. Smith using his
left hand. At this fire Dr. Jeffries was wounded
in the thigh, and his loss of blood occasioned an
exhaustion which again delayed the conflict for a
few minutes. He, however, recovered, and both
desired to shorten the distance. They now stood
up for the fourth time, covered with blood, and
at a distance of six feet. They were to fire between
the words “one” and “five,” and the shot
320proved fatal to both parties. They fell to the earth.
Dr. Smith was dead when he dropped, the ball
having penetrated his heart. Dr. Jeffries was shot
through the breast, and survived but four hours.
They fought with perfect coolness. When Dr.
Jeffries saw that his antagonist had fallen, he asked
if he was dead; and being assured that he was, he
declared his own willingness to die. Before he expired,
he said he had been a schoolmate with Dr.
Smith, and that they had been on terms of great
intimacy and friendship for fifteen years; and he
bore honourable testimony to his character as a
man of science and a gentleman.
A hostile meeting took place in the Bois
de Boulogne, between General Sebastiani, minister
for foreign affairs, and General Lamarque,
arising out of a speech made by the latter in the
Chamber of Deputies, in which he represented
M. Lebeau, Belgian minister for foreign affairs,
as the Sebastiani of Belgium. The seconds present
on this occasion, General Jacqueminot and
M. de Rumigny, were chosen by General Sebastiani;
whose adversary expressed himself satisfied
with their presence, and declined appointing
any on his own behalf. The affair having been
arranged on the ground without an exchange
321of shots, a detailed account of the circumstances
attendant upon the intended duel was published
in the journal called the Tribune; the tenor
of which betrayed, on the part of General
Sebastiani’s seconds, more anxiety to settle the
difference without fighting, than is usually
considered consistent with the honour of the
principal whom they are called upon to represent.
A letter was, in consequence, addressed
to the editor of the Tribune by General Jacqueminot
and M. de Rumigny, in which they contradicted
many of the circumstances stated in
that journal, and entered into an explanation,
which General Lamarque interpreted as being unfavourable
to himself. Another meeting, in consequence,
took place in the Bois de Boulogne;
Admiral de Rigny acting as the second of General
Sebastiani, and General Harispe for General
Lamarque. Two pistol-shots having been
exchanged without injury to either party, the
seconds interfered, and the affair was amicably
settled.
A duel was this day fought upon Wimbledon
Common, between Major-General Lorenzo Moore,
C.B., and Miles Stapylton, Esq. In the evening
of the same day, the General was brought to
322Union Hall police office, on a charge of wounding
Mr. Stapylton; when Mr. David Harris stated,
that as he was proceeding to Godalming on the
outside of the stage-coach, about four o’clock,
in passing the road which crosses Wimbledon
Common, he heard the report of a pistol, and
on looking towards the spot observed a gentleman
fall. He and Mr. Self alighted, and ran
to the place. Seeing the gentleman lying on
the ground, and blood upon the breast part of
his shirt, they went towards the General, who
had a pistol in his hand, and told him that he
must consider himself in custody. The General
offered no resistance, and immediately resigned
his fire-arms. In the meanwhile, the seconds and
some other persons carried the wounded gentleman
off the field, placed him in a carriage, and
drove towards town. The witness and Mr. Self
conducted the General to Kingston, and gave him
into the custody of a constable, who brought him
to town. On the following day he was again
brought up, and was much affected at hearing
a certificate of the dangerous condition of Mr.
Stapylton read. Bail to any amount was offered;
but Mr. Chambers, the magistrate, said that while
the wounded gentleman remained in a condition
between life and death, it was his duty to retain
the General in custody. He was again brought
before Mr. Chambers on the 22nd; who said that
he had received a certificate from Mr. Guthrie,
323the surgeon, who described Mr. Stapylton as being
much better, and understood it was the decided
wish of that gentleman and his friends
that the whole matter should drop, and that no
further proceedings should be instituted against
the General. Under these circumstances, he and
his colleague, Mr. Murray, had resolved to admit
him to bail. They then decided, that he should
find two securities of a thousand pounds each,
and enter into his own recognizance in the sum
of two thousand pounds, to appear at the next
Surrey assizes; or, in the event of the fatal termination
of Mr. Stapylton’s wound, to appear
at the Old Bailey to take his trial. The required
securities were immediately entered into, and the
General was discharged.
In consequence of some reflections made by
the editor of the French journal, the Tribune,
on Marshal Lobau, commandant of the Parisian
National Guard, four officers on the staff of the
Marshal paid a visit to the office of the Tribune,
with, to use a homely expression, a very bullying
message. Taken unawares, the principal
editor refused to meet a body of persons; but
expressed his readiness to give the Marshal himself
personal satisfaction. The affair got wind;
and, in the course of the day, many young men
324left their cards at the office of the Tribune, soliciting
to be permitted, as assistant-editors of
journals, to take off the odds; and accordingly
the Tribune of March the 21st, intimated to the
Etat-major, publicly in its columns, that sixty-seven
editors were ready to go out with the
sixty-seven officers of which the Etat-major is
composed. Saturday, the 23rd, produced the
first of the duels resulting from this challenge
en masse. The principals in this affair were
General Jacqueminot of the Etat-major, and
M. Belmonte, the editor-in-chief of the Tribune.
The former was attended by General Gourgaud
and Colonel Taunton; the latter, by Colonel
Bricqueville, a member of the Chamber of Deputies,
and M. Cartel, editor of the Nationel.
After an exchange of shots, the seconds interfered,
and that particular affair was made up.
In consequence of a paragraph which appeared
in the French journal called “Le Temps,” reflecting
on the manner in which orders had been distributed
among the commissaries of police, a
meeting took place in the Bois de Boulogne, between
M. Coste, the editor of that paper, and M.
Bénoit, commissary of police. M. Bénoit was
attended by M. Nay, chief clerk of the private
325office of the prefecture of police, and M. Haymonet,
another commissary. The seconds to M.
Coste were Dr. Pasquier and M. V. Schoeler, a
literary gentleman. The parties were placed at
fifty paces from each other, with an understanding,
that they were to advance to the distance of
twenty paces. Both having arrived at this point,
M. Bénoit desired M. Coste to fire first: this,
however, he declined, and the seconds desired that
they should fire together, at a signal. The two
shots went off within a second of each other: the
ball of M. Bénoit’s pistol went through the collar
of the coat of M. Coste, while that of the latter
entered the right side of his adversary, and passed
through his body, coming out on the left side,
about three inches higher. M. Bénoit was immediately
conveyed to the infirmary of the King’s
household, where he shortly after died.
The endeavour, on the part of the Parisians, to
establish, at this time, a summary law of libel, by
which the editor who ventured to animadvert on
a particular class of public officers, was subjected
to a most awful species of censorship, gave rise to
many animadversions in the English journals;
and amongst them, to the following:—“Truth is
said to lie at the bottom of a well; at Paris they
seek it at the bottom of a bullet wound. The
ordeal, in the late case of the ‘Temps,’ however,
ended in favour of the editor: the commissary of
police,—one of the first of a numerous body of
326challengers for the same offence,—bit the dust, and
is since dead. If editors are to have their errata
thus corrected, they must either be very careful
of what they print, or they must cast their old
types into balls. Hitting a mark will be quite as
necessary as pointing a period: reporters and paragraph-mongers
must be as often seen at the shooting-gallery,
as in the gallery of the House of
Commons. It will be dangerous to enter a newspaper
establishment on the leisure days; for, in
the absence of rumours, the printers will amuse
themselves with reports. The editors and sub-editors
will stick up their unsold numbers for
targets; and he who shall hole the stamp-mark
will be considered to have hit the bull’s-eye, and
be held to have so far broken up the taxes upon
knowledge. Thus, editors will be as dangerous
on days of ball-practice, as on days of publication;
and a man whose character is shot through and
through, if he goes to the office to complain, may
chance to have his thorax perforated as well. Hostilities
have, however, on this side the water,
scarcely commenced; and where they have, it
must be said, little resentment has been exhibited
on the part of the beaten journalists. This affair
of M. Coste and M. Bénoit demonstrates the
greater freedom of the press in England than in
Paris. Had the liberty of finding fault with the
manner in which orders had been distributed
among the commissaries of police been indulged
327in by an English paper on English magistrates,
the remark would have been thought perfectly
legitimate; and, so far from being fought about,
would not have been even answered, unless by
some paper in the opposite interest. This is,
surely, far more rational than Mr. Roe, and Mr.
Rawlinson, and Mr. Chambers, rushing into the
offices of ‘The Morning Chronicle’ or ‘The Examiner,’
cursing the publisher, abusing the clerks,
and challenging the editors to mortal combat.
Where would be the use of Mr. Roe evading his
own officers, and skulking to Chalk Farm, some
dewy morning, in order to slaughter Mr. Black,
because of the acrimony of his remarks on a police
case? In this matter, at least, we order these
things better than in France.”
On this day a fatal duel took place near Exeter,
between Sir John Jeffcott and Dr. Hennis. The
dispute had arisen, in consequence of the Doctor
having been supposed to have uttered words injurious
to the reputation of Sir John, a judge of
Sierra Leone. On the 26th of July, at the assizes
at Exeter, he was charged with having unlawfully,
feloniously, and of malice aforethought, inflicted
a wound upon Peter Hennis, M.D., with a
leaden bullet, of which wound he afterwards died;
328and Charles Melford, Robert Holland, and George
Anthony Halstead, were charged with aiding and
assisting him. Sir John Jeffcott had not been
apprehended. The other parties this day appeared
in court to take their trial; and the following is
the substance of the evidence brought forward.
John Corfield Irving.—“I had a conversation
with Dr. Hennis, on the 10th of May, in consequence
of which he wrote a declaration. After
which, I saw Sir John Jeffcott, and told him I
had come to him from Dr. Hennis; upon which
he asked, if I came as the Doctor’s friend. In
consequence of what he said, I saw Mr. Melford,
and I read to him, or showed him, this paper.
I said, I trusted it would convince Sir John that
the Doctor had never made use of the words in
the sense imputed to him, and induce him to retract
the expressions he had made use of towards
the Doctor in the morning. Mr. Melford said,
the Doctor had admitted the words imputed to
him; upon which Sir John made use of the words
‘calumniating scoundrel.’ I told Mr. Melford
I was directed by the Doctor to deny most unequivocally
the use of the words, in the meaning
imputed to him; that, on the contrary, the Doctor
had asked a member of a respectable family, if
the reports circulated in Exeter were true. The
party said they were not true, and that Sir John
had acted most honourably. Mr. Melford replied,
that the words made use of by Dr. Hennis could
329not have been mistaken by Mr. Holland; and he
showed me the copy of a letter, written by Sir
John Jeffcott to Dr. Hennis, on the subject. This
is the letter:—
“Street’s Clarence Hotel, May 10.
“Sir,
“In a conversation with a gentleman of character
and respectability, and I believe hitherto of
unquestionable veracity, I was last night, to my
great astonishment, informed that you had, about
three months ago, stated to my informant, that
the reason why a certain affair, in which the name
of a most respectable family is involved, to whom
I need not more particularly allude, was broken
off was, that I had given that family a false statement
of my pretensions; that I had, among other
things, asserted I had a vote for the University of
Dublin, which, in your opinion, I had no more
than you had; meaning, I presume, that I had
no vote, and that I had stated what was not true,
and that you considered that I was, in fact, a
mere adventurer. I can scarcely imagine that a
person holding the station in society that you do,
or that any man who ought, by profession and
education, to be a gentleman, could have gone so
gratuitously out of his way to traduce the character
of any individual behind his back; particularly
when that individual was your countryman,
to whom to his face you had made professions,
if not of friendship, at least, of cordiality and
330good-will, and whose only previous intercourse
with you was consulting you professionally in the
first instance, and meeting you afterwards once or
twice when you called professionally at the house
of his friends. You will therefore, I feel satisfied,
see the propriety, from regard to your own character,
of coming at once to an explicit understanding
upon the subject of this letter, and stating
to me whether you did or did not use the expressions
attributed to you. If you did not, you
cannot, I am sure, as a gentleman, hesitate to disavow
them promptly and unequivocally. If, on
the other hand, you are prepared to maintain them,
you will see the propriety of letting me know so
without delay; as I am at present alone in Exeter,
and am ordered to embark to-morrow morning on
board his Majesty’s ship Britomart, at Plymouth.
“I have the honour to be, &c.
“J. W. Jeffcott.”
“I read this letter, and told Mr. Melford I was
not aware it had been written, and must return to
Dr. Hennis to know how he had acted under it.
I communicated to the Doctor what had taken
place. I found Captain Halstead with him. The
Doctor told me, the Captain had received a communication
from him prior to his meeting me. I
therefore begged to resign the business into his
hands. The Captain undertook the amicable arrangement
of the matter, and with that view instructed
331me to accompany him back to Mr. Melford’s;
two heads being, he said, better than one.
I did so. The Captain either read or showed
Dr. Hennis’s declaration to Mr. Melford, and said
he felt confident Sir John Jeffcott, on being made
acquainted with its contents, would retract the
obnoxious expressions he had made use of. Mr.
Melford said, he took the same view of the words
as Sir John did, and that the Doctor had made an
admission of them in the morning. He added,
that the business could have been settled at nine
that morning; but he feared it was then too late,
as Sir John was to leave the town at three o’clock
for Plymouth, and was perfectly satisfied with the
part he had acted. Captain Halstead said, it
could never be too late to arrange a business of
that kind, and requested Mr. Melford would go
to Sir John, and acquaint him with the nature
of the strong declaration Dr. Hennis had signed.
He afterwards told me, that Sir John would
neither accept an explanation nor retract the words
he had used. I took no part after.”
William Hucksford, servant to Dr. Eady, said—“I
accompanied him in his gig to Halden: when
I arrived, I saw Mr. Holland near the road, and
four gentlemen on the race-course. I saw them
walk up to each other, and then walk away in
two parties. I heard the report of a pistol, and,
on going up, I saw Dr. Hennis, who appeared to
be much wounded. Sir John Jeffcott knelt on the
332ground, and asked Dr. Hennis if he would forgive
him. I could not hear what answer the
Doctor gave, but they shook hands; and, immediately
after, the Doctor fell upon the ground.”
Mr. Luscombe, surgeon, said, he saw Dr. Hennis
about six in the evening. “He had a wound in
the body below the shoulder blade, caused by a
bullet. I attended him till his death, which took
place on the 18th.”
Mr. Justice Patteson then charged the jury.
He said that, from the facts proved, it was either
a case of the high offence charged, or of no crime
at all. The offence charged was that of murder;
and the prisoners were charged, not with having
inflicted the wound of which Dr. Hennis died,
but with having been present at the time when
another person inflicted that wound, aiding and
assisting that other person, who was not now in
this country, and therefore could not be tried.
Unless it was done with malice aforethought, the
crime of murder was not committed. Now,
malice aforethought was not that of private, individual
ill-will towards the party; but it was the
malice the law presumed, when persons went out,
intending to commit an act which was in itself
unlawful. The law was this,—that if a person
was so near as to be able to give assistance in any
way to that which was going on, though even at
some distance, for the purpose of giving such
assistance, and went there for that purpose, then
333he was considered to be aiding and assisting. If
a party killed another in a deliberate duel, he was
guilty of murder. Whenever two persons, in
cool blood, met and fought on a preceding quarrel,
and one was killed, the law said the other
was guilty of murder; and he could not help himself
by alleging, that the other struck the first
blow, or that it was his intent only to vindicate
his reputation: he had engaged in an act highly
unlawful, and must abide the consequences; and
not only the principal, but all persons aiding and
assisting, or knowingly present at any deliberate
duel, would be liable to a charge of murder.
Where two persons went out with deadly weapons,
tending to produce death, it was impossible
not to see that they must have contemplated the
possibility that death would ensue. The two principals
in this case had had a personal altercation,
but the other gentlemen had not. There had
been messages to and fro, and great attempts to
prevent a duel. They would say whether those
attempts, and the ultimate arrangements to meet
at Halden, would or not lead them to believe that
it took place in the heat of blood. He confessed
he had extreme difficulty in seeing how they
could arrive at such a conclusion; how it could
be said, the duel took place in the heat of passion:
if they believed it did not, then it was a
deliberate duel; and if so, the law pronounced
it to be murder. He would say nothing as to
334whether duelling ought to be tolerated: it was not
tolerated by the law of England.—After detailing
the whole of the evidence, the learned judge
adverted to the high characters the parties had
received; which he said was not inconsistent with
that sense of honour, which induced them to go
out and render their assistance to two persons in
a deliberate duel. The question was in their
hands, and they would decide according to their
consciences.
The jury remained in consultation for a few
minutes, and returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”
In the course of this month, a case came on to
be tried at the assizes of the Seine, in which a
charge of murder, committed in a duel, was made
against M. Charles Leon, a natural son of the late
Emperor Napoleon. M. Leon dined, on the 31st
of December 1831, with M. de Rosambert, and
met there another guest, Captain de Hesse.
After dinner, play was introduced, and M. Leon
was so unfortunate as to lose eighteen thousand
francs. When called on to pay, he contended,
that M. de Hesse had pledged himself to give his
antagonist a revanche; which was only consistent
with the laws of honour applicable to the game.
335An angry discussion arose, and M. de Hesse published
some particulars of the affair, which were
considered prejudicial to the character of M. Leon.
The differences between them at last arose to
such a height, that a meeting became inevitable;
and, on the 24th of February 1832, the hostile
proceeding took place. The result was, that M.
de Hesse was mortally wounded, and died three
days afterwards. On the ground, M. de Hesse
admitted the bravery and strict honour of his
antagonist; his wife was, nevertheless, determined
to prosecute. Accordingly, the seconds were
summoned; of whom only General Gourgaud and
M. May appeared. General Gourgaud gave his
evidence to the following effect:—“I am not able
to give any details respecting the circumstances
which gave rise to this affair; for I am wholly
ignorant of them. My friend M. Monneval, commissioned
by the Emperor Napoleon to superintend
the conduct of M. Leon, was indisposed at
the time, and requested me to act for him in this
very serious matter. I undertook the duty with
regret; for I was well aware of the ties which
bound M. Leon to the Emperor, and I was conscious
of all that his Majesty had communicated
to me on this subject at St. Helena. It was with
me a sacred obligation, imposed by gratitude, not
to abandon him at such a moment.”
After a short deliberation, the jury found M.
Leon “Not guilty,” and the court acquitted him.
336
A meeting with swords took place this day
in the Bois de Meudon, between the Duke de
Rovigo, lieutenant of the first regiment of the
Chasseurs of Africa, and the Count de Langle,
captain of the National Horse Guards, in consequence
of some offensive expressions uttered
by the Duke, relative to certain recompenses
granted to the National Guards. The Duke
de Rovigo received a wound in his chest, which
prevented him from continuing the combat.
In consequence of a dispute at a ball, on the
20th of April, Mr. St. John and Count Catraffiana
left Rome for the Neapolitan territory.
On account of a supposed rudeness on the part
of the Count towards Mr. St. John, the latter
had pulled his nose publicly in the ball-room;
the consequence of which proceeding was a
formal challenge the next morning from the
Count. The duel was first to have taken place
at Rome; but the police, having got wind of it,
had taken measures to prevent it. They accordingly
337left Rome on the 24th, and arrived on the
following day at the Valla di Cicerone, near Mola
di Gaita. Each of the combatants was attended
by two seconds. They remained five minutes
opposite to one another after the signal was given,
each expecting the other to move forward. Mr.
St. John then advanced a few paces, and fired
with fatal precision; his ball entering the chest of
his opponent. The Count, after being wounded,
put his hand to his breast, walked forward nine
paces, fired, and dropped down dead. The Count’s
ball carried off a part of Mr. St. John’s ear, and
penetrated his hat. The Count was a practised
duellist, having wounded several antagonists on
similar occasions.
A desperate duel was fought this day, at Washington,
between Captain Everett White, brother
of the delegate in Congress, and Colonel Bellamy,
formerly president of the Legislative Council.
These gentlemen were candidates for Jefferson’s
county, and Captain White was returned. The
duel, from the mode of conducting it, was evidently
intended to have fatal results. They were
stationed sixty yards apart, with four pistols, to
advance and fire. Captain White advanced, and
338received three shots without injury, and then
fired at the distance of fifteen paces. His first
shot passed through Colonel Bellamy’s arm, the
next through his body, and, in the act of advancing
with the other two pistols, he received
a mortal wound from Colonel Bellamy’s fourth
pistol.
A meeting took place this day, at Wormwood
Scrubs, between Brigadier-General Evans, of the
British Auxiliary Legion, and Captain Lothian
Dickson, of the British army, and late of the
Legion. The misunderstanding arose out of circumstances
that had taken place at the quarters
of the Legion in Spain. Brigadier-General Evans,
however, had refused to meet Captain Dickson,
in consequence of what he considered to be conduct,
on the part of the latter gentleman, which
had forfeited his claim. The Junior United Service
Club at last interfered, and decided that no
stain of that nature rested on Captain Dickson.
The meeting, in consequence, after some negotiation,
took place. The following is the account
of General Evans’s second, which is borne
out by Mr. Cooke, the friend of Captain Dickson:—“The
meeting took place, and the principals
339being placed, General Evans received Captain
Dickson’s fire; when, after an interval of a
few seconds. General Evans brought down his
pistol and uncocked it, without having fired.
Upon which I addressed myself to Mr. Cooke,
and said, ‘I have now to say, that, in deference
to the opinion of the committee of the Junior
United Service Club, I have brought my friend
here; and, having now paid that deference to
those gentlemen, I feel it my duty to withdraw
General Evans from the ground.’ Mr. Cooke
then said, ‘I am not satisfied,’ and again made
allusion to an apology. I persisted in withdrawing
General Evans, without further explanation;
and, on leaving the ground, he then only informed
me of his being wounded; and, on his return to
his hotel, he was attended by Sir Stephen Hammick,
who extracted the ball, and left his patient
in as comfortable a state as, under the circumstances
could be expected.”
A fatal duel took place between M. Armand
Carrel, editor of the Parisian journal the Nationel,
and M. Émile de Girardin, editor of the Presse.
The Nationel, in a very measured note upon a
340prosecution instituted by the Presse against the
Bon Sens, expressed an opinion, that M. de
Girardin would have done better to settle his
quarrel with the editor of that feuilleton by
written discussion, than by having recourse to
the law. The Presse, in answering this note,
introduced, in a manner not the most proper,
the name of M. Carrel; who, although he did not
sign the Nationel as its responsible editor, felt
himself called upon to take the steps which led
to such a deplorable result. M. Carrel fired first,
and wounded his adversary in the thigh. M.
de Girardin fired in his turn, and the ball entered
the lower part of M. Carrel’s body. He was immediately
conveyed to Mandé, to the house of
M. Peyra, an old and intimate friend; where he
died on the following day. When they were
carrying him from the ground, in passing his
antagonist, he said to him, “And are you, M. de
Girardin, suffering much?” The latter, replied,
“I wish, sir, you were not more seriously wounded
than I am.”
In consequence of an assault committed by
the Honourable Grantley Fitzhardinge Berkeley,
M.P. on Mr. James Fraser, the publisher of the
341magazine under his name, Dr. William Maginn,
the author of the article which originally gave
offence, left his card at Berkeley House. A hostile
message was forthwith sent by the honourable
member, and a meeting was agreed upon
for seven o’clock in the evening. Mr. Grantley
Berkeley was attended by Major Fancourt, and
Dr. Maginn by Mr. Hugh Fraser. The parties
met in a field near the Edgeware Road, and, after
exchanging three shots without effect, Mr. Hugh
Fraser withdrew his principal; no explanation or
apology having been required or tendered.
A duel was this morning fought, in a field
adjoining Hampstead Heath, between Mr. Harro
Harring, a native of Denmark, and a Polish officer,
whose name is not known. The principals met
on the ground, attended by seconds; and, having
been placed at ten paces’ distance, both discharged
their pistols at the same instant, when Mr. Harring
fell to the ground. He was conveyed to the
North London Hospital; and the wound being
pronounced to be dangerous, the victor, after asking
and receiving forgiveness from the wounded
man, mounted his horse and rode off to London
Bridge; where he embarked on board a steamboat
342for Boulogne; the duel having been expressly
fought at the time appointed, to allow
the escape of the survivor to the Continent.
A sanguinary “affair of honour” took place
this month at Brownville, in the state of Pennsylvania.
For some time past a slight misunderstanding
had existed between Mr. Banner Anderson,
of Bolivar, and Mr. Jones, merchant, of
Brownville. Near the close of the week, Mr. Anderson
came to Brownville, and, according to custom,
placed his name on the hotel register. Shortly
after, he discovered a remark written immediately
under his name, impugning his character, and
bearing the signature of R. H. Jones. He then
wrote a reply, attaching thereto his proper signature.
On the following Monday Mr. Jones called
at the hotel, and, seeing the appended remark,
became enraged, and declared he would have
satisfaction. He walked to the door of a store
into which Mr. Anderson had just entered, and
called to him to come out. Anderson complied
with the request, when Jones demanded of him,
whether he had written the remark or not? Anderson
answered in the affirmative; upon which,
in an instant, each resorted to a pistol, standing
about four yards apart. They fired simultaneously.
343Jones’s ball lodged in the muzzle of his
adversary’s pistol, and the contents of Anderson’s
pistol lodged in Jones’s breast. He expired in
three hours. Anderson submitted immediately
to the civil authorities, and was discharged. Upon
examination, the whole was found to have been
a misunderstanding; and that, if the parties had
only conversed together on the subject, no difficulty
would have ensued.
A fatal duel took place at Washington, between
two members of the House of Representatives,
Mr. Cilley of Maine, and Mr. Graves of
Kentucky. Mr. Cilley had spoken disrespectfully
of Colonel Webb, editor of the New York
Courier; whereupon Mr. Webb sent him a challenge
by Mr. Graves. Mr. Cilley said he would
not fight such a blackguard as Webb, but was
ready to accept a challenge from Mr. Graves.
The following is an account of the arrangements
for the meeting, drawn up by Mr. Cilley’s second:—“Mr.
Cilley proposes to meet Mr. Graves,
at such place as may be agreed upon between us,
to-morrow at twelve. The weapons to be used
on the occasion shall be rifles; the parties, placed
side to side at eighty yards’ distance from each
other, to hold the rifles at arm’s-length, downwards;
344the rifles to be cocked, and triggers set;
the words to be, ‘Gentlemen, are you ready?’
After which, neither answering ‘No,’ the words
shall be in regular succession, ‘Fire—one, two,
three, four.’ Neither party shall fire before the
word ‘fire,’ nor after the word ‘four.’ The position
of the parties, at the ends of the line, to
be determined by lot. The second of the party
losing the position, shall have the giving of the
word. The dress to be ordinary winter clothing,
and subject to the examination of both parties.
Each party may have on the ground, besides
his second, a surgeon and two other friends.
The seconds, for the execution of their respective
trusts, are allowed to have a pair of pistols each
on the ground; but no other person shall have
any weapon. The rifles to be loaded in the presence
of the seconds.” Three shots were exchanged
without harm: at the fourth, Mr. Cilley
was shot through the heart. Cilley’s funeral was
attended by six hundred persons, in one hundred
and twenty-five carriages. The seconds afterwards
published a statement, declaring that the
duel was “regulated by magnanimous principles,
and the laws of humanity.”
A hostile meeting took place near Lisbon between
Major-General Sir John Milley Doyle and
345Dr. Lovell, the Lisbon correspondent of the
Morning Chronicle; the former attended by Mr.
Brandt and Captain Doyle, and the latter by
Major Dodwell and Captain Ruxton. The cause
of the duel was a paragraph in the Lisbon correspondence
of the Morning Chronicle of the
10th of March, respecting the decision of the
commission appointed to investigate the claims
of foreign officers upon those of Sir John Milley
Doyle; who, considering that the passage was of
a tendency injurious to his interests, required that
it should be qualified by certain explanations on
the part of Dr. Lovell. Sir John having fired
without effect, and his antagonist’s pistol having
missed fire, the seconds of the latter gentleman
interposed; and, having stated it as their opinion
that he ought not to make any further objection
to giving Sir John a declaration, that he had not
intended to advance any opinion of his own in
the notice he had taken of the decision pronounced
by the commission, the affair terminated
amicably.
A duel was this morning fought at Newtown
Park, near Dublin, between a Mr. Pigot and a
Mr. Carroll. At the sixth shot Mr. Pigot received
his adversary’s ball in the leg. While the blood
was streaming, he called for another shot; but
346his request was not complied with. The dispute
arose at a billiard-room, at a late hour of the preceding
night, and they did not return home until
they had settled it.
Mr. Rushout having called upon Mr. Borthwick
to explain some observations made by him
at a public dinner at Evesham, which Mr. Borthwick
declined to do, a meeting took place between
those gentlemen in the evening at Wormwood
Scrubs. After a second discharge of shots, the
seconds interfered; and Mr. Borthwick stated,
that he was perfectly ready to withdraw any observations
which reflected on Mr. Rushout’s character,
being convinced that he had made use of
them under misapprehension.
A meeting with pistols took place near Caen,
in Normandy, between M. Calmel and M. Luard,
both of that town; in which the latter fell, and
died almost immediately. M. Calmel and the four
seconds were indicted for murder, and brought
to trial on the 22d, before the Court of Assizes at
Caen. The jury, notwithstanding the repeated
347reversals of such decisions by the Court of Cassation,
returned a verdict of acquittal against all
the parties.
The attentions of Lord Castlereagh to Madame
Grisi having attracted the observation of her husband,
M. Gerard de Melcy, he took measures to
stop them at the threshold. In consequence of
his precautions, a letter, addressed by Lord Castlereagh
to Madame Grisi, came into his hands, before
it could reach the lady for whom it was
intended. M. de Melcy instantly went to the
residence of the noble Lord, with the intention of
demanding satisfaction; but, not finding him at
home, he repeated his visit on the following day,
with the same result. He thereupon addressed a
note to the noble Lord, informing him that his
letter was intercepted, and calling for the only
reparation that it was in the young nobleman’s
power to give. Lord Castlereagh lost not a moment
in offering the required satisfaction, and
gave the name of Mr. Bentinck as the gentleman
in whose hands his character would be placed.
M. de Melcy called to his aid his friend M. de
Cottreau; who undertook that the weapons should
be pistols, and the distance twelve paces.
These preliminaries being arranged, the meeting
348was fixed for Saturday morning, at half-past four.
Both the gentlemen were in readiness; but, previous
to that hour, it was arranged between the
seconds, that the parties should not use the pistols
they had been accustomed to practise with, but
that two pair should be taken at hazard from
a gunsmith’s shop. This circumstance so delayed
the meeting, that it was not till ten o’clock that
the principals were in a condition to take the
ground. At that hour they met at Wormwood
Scrubs, one surgeon being in attendance. They
were placed at the distance agreed upon, and instructed
that the words to be given were, “Gentlemen,
are you ready? Fire!” accompanied by
the dropping of a handkerchief. Previously to
the signal, Lord Castlereagh caused his second to
deliver into the hands of M. Cottreau a paper
signed by him, declaring that Madame Grisi had
not, in the slightest manner, encouraged his attentions,
and that he had never corresponded with
her before. The word was given, and the signal
dropped. They fired at the same time. M. de
Melcy’s ball passed through his antagonist’s right
arm, near the wrist. His Lordship discharged
his pistol in the air. Mr. Bentinck, on seeing the
condition of Lord Castlereagh, declared that, as
his friend was wounded, the affair could not be
carried further.
349
A duel, arising out of a dispute which took
place at the Saloon in Piccadilly, was this day
fought on Wimbledon Common, in a ravine
about two hundred yards from the mill, between
Mr. Mirfin, formerly a linen-draper residing
in Tottenham-court Road, and Mr. Eliot.
The parties fired at a distance of twelve paces.
At the first shot the ball of Eliot went through
Mirfin’s hat. The seconds immediately interfered;
but the latter objected, and insisted on
having a second shot. The pistols being reloaded,
the parties again fired, when Mirfin fell.
He was immediately attended by Mr. Scott, a
surgeon. His death was nearly instantaneous.
The body of the deceased was then placed in a
cab, and, at the dusk of the evening, brought to
his residence in town. An inquest, which lasted
four days, was held on the body, at the Tankard
Tavern, Brooke Street, Kennington Road, Lambeth,
before the coroner, Mr. Carter, and a jury of
fifteen of the principal inhabitants of the district.
The following are the leading points of the evidence
that was adduced.
Thomas Dunn, the owner of the mill on Wimbledon
Common.—“The first thing I saw, when
the parties arrived in the ravine, was a carpet-bag,
from which was taken a box containing
350some pistols. Five persons were standing together,
and another alone on my left, and a second
about two hundred yards more to the left on
the hill. While the pistols were loading, the
one on my left, who was the person who shot
the deceased, came up to me and said, ‘Good
morning!’ I said, ‘It appears to me those gentlemen
have some difference to decide.’ He answered,
‘Oh! damned nonsense, it’s only a bet
for a hundred pounds.’ I replied, ‘That will not
do for me;’ on which he passed on whistling.
In a minute or two he again passed me, on which
I remarked, it was a pity gentlemen could not
settle their differences in a better way; when he
said, ‘Oh! damned nonsense, I am used to it, and
am one who is going to fight.’ A halfpenny or
penny-piece was then tossed up, as I suppose, for
the choice of pistols, or the ground. As the man
who shot the other was going to the place, one
of the party went up to him and said, ‘You are
all right: you have nothing to fear.’ I saw both
parties present their pistols, and heard two reports.
Shortly after, I again heard the pistols
discharged. Directly after, the gentleman who
had spoken to me came towards me, and said,
‘I have done for the ——.’ I at that moment
saw the deceased falling. I went to him and
saw him stripped; when I saw a wound resembling
that from a ball. All except one, who
was engaged in pinching up the wound, left the
351ground. I said to him, ‘I fear he is a dead man.’
The carriages all left, except the hired cab. The
deceased was dead when I left the spot.”
George Clark, the cabman.—“I was on the
stand at the Elephant and Castle on Wednesday
last, about a quarter past five in the afternoon,
when I saw two gentlemen in a gig, and one
standing on the path. I pulled over, when the
latter gentleman, Mr. Scott, surgeon, of Rockingham
Row, got in. On reaching Wimbledon
Common, we saw a carriage drawn up; it had
post-horses: and there was a stanhope as well.
The gentleman then got out of my cab. In a
few minutes, I heard the report of fire-arms; on
which, I and the postillion ran towards the spot.
When we reached it, the deceased had fallen, and
the parties had all left, except Mr. Scott and the
deceased. The gig came up with a gentleman,
who, jumping out, ran down the hollow. On his
return he said, ‘He’s dead!’ and again jumped
into the gig. I seized the horse’s head, and said.
‘You must not leave him so; what can I do?’
when he said, ‘It’s my horse and gig;’ and, on
my trying to prevent him, he struck the horse
and forced himself away. Mr. Scott told me to
bring my cab. I said I could not bring it down
the hollow; on which, the body was brought up,
and placed in my cab. Mr. Scott then got in; and
I said, ‘Where am I to go to?’ He said, ‘Across
the common, to a friend’s house.’ I refused, however,
352to drive him, unless the body was taken to
the deceased’s residence: when he told me to
drive to Pleasant Place; where, on my arrival,
it was taken into the parlour.”
Mr. Scott, the surgeon.—“After the first fire,
the seconds both interfered, and wished to reconcile
the parties. Mr. Mirfin said, he would receive
nothing but a written apology; which Mr. Eliot
refused to give. Mr. Mirfin then insisted upon a
second fire. After he had fired, he walked about
six paces towards me, and said, ‘I am wounded!’
I said, ‘Where? I am exceedingly sorry to hear
it.’ He then raised his finger to show me where
he was wounded. I then shook my head, and
said, ‘Good-b’ye. God bless you!’ and he said,
‘Good-b’ye, old fellow!’ Mr. Broughton came
up, and said, ‘What shall I do?’ I said, ‘Leave
as quickly as possible.’ The other parties quitted
the ground, without rendering any assistance.
After they had been gone about five minutes, a
tall gentleman returned, and asked how he was
going on? I replied, ‘He is dying.’ This was
one of the parties who had been present. Mr.
Mirfin died ten minutes after he had received the
shot. I asked him to wait, observing, that he
could not be in a worse situation than I myself
was. He promised to remain; but quickly ran or
walked away towards the mill. I never saw him
afterwards.”
The room was cleared, and, after about fifty
353minutes’ deliberation, the foreman announced to
the coroner, that they had come to a verdict of
“Wilful murder” against Francis Lionel Eliot,
as principal; and John Young, Henry Webber,
Edward Delves Broughton, and two other persons
unknown, as principals in the second degree.
Warrants were immediately made out and issued
for the apprehension of the parties.
On the 21st of September, their trial came on at
the Central Criminal Court. Eliot and Broughton
did not appear; but Young and Webber took
their places at the bar. Mr. Bodkin said, that in
consequence of the illness of Mr. Clarkson, who
was Broughton’s counsel, it had been thought desirable
that he should not surrender. The prisoners
having pleaded “Not guilty,” Mr. Chambers
opened the case for the prosecution, and called
the various witnesses. At the close of the case
for the prosecution, Mr. Adolphus addressed the
jury in behalf of Webber, and Mr. Phillips in behalf
of Young. They both maintained, that there
was not a tittle of evidence to show that either of
them had any participation in the unfortunate occurrence.
Several witnesses spoke to their character;
which was described as being of the most
humane description.
Mr. Justice Vaughan then charged the jury. He
said, that the case, in his own opinion, presented
no point of difficulty. The question for them to
determine was, whether the prisoners at the bar
354had gone down for the purpose of aiding and
encouraging Mr. Eliot. If they entertained any
doubt upon that point, they were bound to give
them the benefit of that doubt. There were,
undoubtedly, he observed, some peculiarities in
the present case, which did not belong to any
other case of duelling with which he was acquainted;
and that peculiarity was, the fact of so
many persons having been mixed up with the
transaction. With regard to the manner in which
it was conducted, it did not appear that any
unfair advantage had been taken by either party.
On the contrary, as far as he knew anything of
such matters, the affair appeared to have been
managed with a strict regard to the practice
usually followed on similar occasions.
The jury, after retiring about twenty minutes,
brought in a verdict of “Guilty.” The foreman
then said, that he had been desired by his brother
jurors to express the horror they felt at the
conduct of Mr. Scott; and to say, that, in their
opinion, he ought to have been placed at the bar
along with the prisoners. Mr. Justice Vaughan
said, he quite agreed with the jury as regarded
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chambers said, he was instructed
by the brother of the deceased, who had felt it
his duty to institute this prosecution, to recommend
the prisoners to mercy, on account of the
excellent character they had received. Mr. Justice
Vaughan said, the recommendation should be
355attended to; but for the present the Court would
order, that sentence of death should be recorded
against the prisoners, and they would from that
understand that their lives would be spared.
The sentence of death was afterwards commuted
to twelve months’ imprisonment in Guildford
gaol; the last month to be passed in solitary
confinement. Eliot and Broughton had escaped
abroad. The parties appealing to this barbarous
code of refined honour could, apparently, claim
only a very doubtful gentility. Eliot was the
nephew of an innkeeper at Taunton, and recently
an officer in the British Auxiliary Legion in
Spain; Mirfin was the son of a mercer at Doncaster,
and had kept a linen-draper’s shop in Tottenham-court
Road; and Young was the son of
a brick-maker at Haddenham, near Aylesbury.
The disgusting exhibition at Wimbledon in this
case is believed to have done much to bring the
practice of duelling into ridicule and detestation.
In consequence of some expressions which were
made use of by the Marquis of Londonderry in
the House of Lords, in reference to a speech
reported to have been made by Mr. Henry Grattan
at a public meeting in Dublin, Mr. Grattan
356addressed a letter of inquiry to the Marquis, to
which the following answer was returned:—
“Holdernesse House, June 12.
“Lord Londonderry presents his compliments
to Mr. Henry Grattan. Lord Londonderry read,
in his place in the House of Lords, an extract
from the reports of the newspapers of a speech of
Mr. O’Connell’s, stated to have been made at a
public meeting in Dublin, to address the Queen;
in which accusations were made against that
party to which Lord Londonderry is proud to
belong. The paragraph Lord L. cited is as
follows:—‘Mr. Grattan had said, that her Majesty’s
life would not be safe if the Tories came
into power; and he (Mr. O’Connell) declared solemnly
he was convinced she would not live six
months, if that event took place.’ Lord Londonderry
at once admits, if these sentiments are
accurately reported, accusing the Tory party of
the intention of murdering the Queen, he considers
them as base and infamous. It was to such
accusations Lord Londonderry’s epithets applied.”
In a second letter, Mr. Grattan begged to say,
that he was not accountable for any opinion or
expression in Mr. O’Connell’s speeches. As he
had not alluded, in any speech of his, in any way
to Lord Londonderry, he requested his lordship
would distinctly say, whether he intended that
the words ‘base’ and ‘infamous’ should be applied
357to him? In answer to this letter. Lord Londonderry
observed, that, unwilling as he should be
to fix upon any individual the responsibility of
having uttered such sentiments as those reported
in the public accounts of the meeting to which he
alluded, he must adhere to the opinion he had
already expressed, as applying to any individual
who was prepared to avow such language. The
epithets complained of were, he said, applied, not
to individuals, but to injurious accusations reported
to have been publicly uttered against a
political body; and since there was no disavowal,
on Mr. Henry Grattan’s part, of the language and
sentiments reported to have been used, Lord
Londonderry regretted he could not recede from
the opinions he had already expressed.
In consequence of this correspondence, a meeting
was arranged, which took place this day, at
three o’clock, on Wimbledon Common. Upon
the signal being given, Lord Londonderry received
Mr. Grattan’s fire, and fired in the air.
Mr. Bodkin, on the part of Mr. Grattan, then
expressed himself perfectly satisfied, and the affair
terminated.
A hostile meeting took place this day at
Coombe Wood, between Lord Powerscourt and
Mr. Roebuck; the former attended by the Honourable
358H. Fitzroy, and the latter by Mr. Trelawney.
On the ground endeavours were made
in vain to prevent proceeding to extremities;
Lord Powerscourt’s second insisting on Mr. Roebuck’s
retracting, or apologising for, certain words
delivered in a speech at Bath. Mr. Roebuck
received his adversary’s fire, discharged his pistol
in the air, and, advancing to Lord Powerscourt,
said, “Now, my lord, I am ready to make any
apology your lordship may suggest; for certainly,
in my speech at Bath, I did not mean to imply anything
personally offensive.” With this declaration
all parties being satisfied, the affair terminated.
A duel was this day fought near Boulogne,
between Lord George Loftus and Lord Harley.
Shots were exchanged without effect; and the
parties returned to Dover on the evening of the
same day. The affair originated in certain expressions
used by Lord George Loftus towards
Lord Harley, on occasion of Lord Harley’s presenting
himself to the notice of Lord George,
and claiming an acquaintance, of which Lord
George had no recollection whatever. Lord Harley
stated, that his introduction to Lord George
had been at the instance of his brother, Lord
Loftus; and, on the faith of this statement, Lord
359George’s second retracted, in his name, the expressions
that gave the offence.
A meeting took place on Wimbledon Common
between Lord William Paget and Mr. Thomas
Fiske. The former was attended by Captain
Baillie, of the Lancers; and the latter by Mr.
Nightingale. Mr. Fiske received his lordship’s
fire, and fired in the air; when the seconds interfered.
It appears that Lord William had called
upon Mr. Fiske to deny that he had ever lent
money to his lordship, as had been stated in a
morning paper; which request was refused to be
complied with, on the ground of its being accompanied
by a threat; but, after receiving his lordship’s
fire, he had no hesitation in declaring, in
the presence of Captain Baillie and Mr. Nightingale,
that he never had lent any money to his
lordship.
The following is from a New York paper:—On
the 17th of May, two persons, one named Robert
Wynn, and the other Joseph D. Brown, quarreled
in a stage-coach between Peru and Chicago,
360Illinois. Both drew their pistols, fired, and killed
each other. One was shot in the head; the other
in the heart. They were the only passengers.
The following account of a frightful duel fought
near New Orleans, is from the Courier de la
Louisiane:—A meeting, as atrocious in the mode
of conducting it, as it was disastrous in its result,
has just taken place between M. Hippolyte
Throuet and M. Paulin Prué, both Frenchmen by
birth, and long resident in this city. It originated
in a bitterly contested law-suit, and took
place in the following manner. The principals
were placed at five paces distant from each other,
back to back, with a pistol in each hand. At a
signal agreed upon, they were to turn round and
fire. At the first discharge they fired together,
but without effect. Prué then took his second
pistol into his right hand; but so precipitately,
that it was discharged in the air. Seeing himself
thus exposed, without any means of defence, to
his adversary’s fire, he presented his bosom to
him, and said, “Fire!” Several of the bystanders,
of whom there were a great number, trembling
for the fate which awaited the disarmed man,
cried out from their places, “Don’t fire!” but the
seconds interposed, and, demanding who dared to
interfere in a matter of the sort, invited Throuet
361to discharge his pistol against his opponent.
Throuet needed not the invitation; but, having
kept both Prué and the bystanders for a considerable
time in a state of the most painful suspense,
still holding Prué covered with his pistol, and
grinning ferociously, fired at last, and, the ball
passing through Prué’s body, he died instantaneously.
A meeting took place in one of the Kilburn
fields, adjoining the New North-road, St. John’s
Wood, between Mr. Antonio Garbonia and Mr.
Nicholas Kechoff. On the first fire Mr. Garbonia
received his antagonist’s ball in his left groin, and
fell. Mr. Kechoff advanced to the wounded man,
shook hands with him, and immediately quitted
the ground with his friends. The cause of the
meeting arose from disputed betting at a billiard-table.
In consequence of the Earl of Cardigan having
ascertained, that certain letters which had recently
been published in the Morning Chronicle, reflecting,
as his lordship considered, on his character as
an officer and a gentleman, were written by Lieutenant
Tuckett, late of the 11th regiment of Dragoons,
362of which his lordship is Lieutenant-Colonel,
the noble Lord sent him, through Captain Douglas,
a challenge. This was accepted, and Captain
Wainwright, of the Half-pay, was selected by him
to arrange the preliminaries. An apology was
demanded by the noble Earl; to which the reply
was, that if he would deny the allegations contained
in the letters referred to, it should be given.
Lord Cardigan declared that certain portions were
true; but that the greater part were calumnies.
On this the apology was refused, and a meeting
was the consequence.
It took place on the afternoon of Saturday,
the 12th of September, on Wimbledon Common.
The first shot was ineffectual on both sides: on the
second, Mr. Tuckett received his adversary’s ball
in the back part of the lower ribs, which traversed
round to the spine. As Lord Cardigan and his
second were moving off after the duel, they were
taken into custody, but liberated on bail being
given to the police for their appearance before the
magistrates at Wandsworth on Monday: when
Sir James Anderson deposed, that, after the removal
of Mr. Tuckett to his house, he made an
examination, and found that a pistol bullet had
entered on the upper part of his right hip-bone,
slightly shattering it, had passed transversely, and
come out over the spine of the back-bone. He
said he had visited the patient again on Sunday,
and saw no symptoms of present danger. The
363magistrates decided, that, as the case was one of a
serious nature, they could not be contented with
ordinary recognizances, but should order the Earl
of Cardigan to enter into his own recognizance
in the sum of a thousand pounds, and Captain
Douglas in the sum of five hundred, to ensure
their reappearance before that bench on Monday,
the 28th.
The following statement of this affair was
published by Lord Cardigan:—“Lord Cardigan
having been informed, upon good authority, that
the editor of the Morning Chronicle, upon application
being made to him for the name of the
writer of a letter dated the 3rd of September
1840, signed ‘An Old Soldier,’ which appeared in
that paper of the 4th of September, had stated it
to come from Mr. Harvey Tuckett, Captain
Douglas, at the request of Lord Cardigan,
waited upon Mr. Tuckett, on the 11th instant, to
demand satisfaction. Mr. Tuckett acknowledged
himself the author, and requested time to go into
the country, to consult Captain Wainwright as his
friend. On Saturday, the 12th instant, Captain
Douglas met Captain Wainwright, when the
latter solicited in writing the grounds upon which
Lord Cardigan demanded satisfaction of his friend
Mr. Tuckett. Captain Douglas delivered, about
half-past two, P.M., the following statement, viz.—
“‘Lord Cardigan yesterday authorised Captain
Douglas to require of Mr. Tuckett to afford him
364satisfaction, in consequence of a letter, of which
Mr. Tuckett has avowed himself the author, and
which appeared in the Morning Chronicle of the
4th instant, signed ‘An Old Soldier;’ many parts
of which contained matter entirely false, and the
whole of which was slanderous, insulting, and calumnious.
“‘Cardigan.’”
“London, September 12”
Lord Cardigan, his second, and the second of
Lieutenant Tuckett, were brought before the
bench of magistrates at Wandsworth, and were
all committed to take their trial at the ensuing
sessions of the Central Criminal Court. The
charge, as against the noble Lord, was for “shooting
with a pistol at Lieutenant Harvey Tuckett,
with intent to murder or do him some bodily
harm;” and, as against Captain Douglas and Captain
Wainwright, for aiding and abetting, in the
character of seconds. Lord Cardigan was admitted
to bail on his own recognizance of 2000l., and
two sureties of 1000l. each; and the two other
prisoners were required severally to give bail in the
sum of 500l., and two sureties in 250l. each. The
parties were then bound over to appear and prosecute
the prisoners at the ensuing sessions.
Lieutenant Tuckett being sufficiently recovered
to appear before the magistrates of the Wandsworth
365Court, a special session was this day held,
for the purpose of entering into his examination,
on the charge of shooting at the Earl of Cardigan,
with intent to murder him. The former evidence
having been read over, he was fully committed to
take his trial upon the charge of felony, and
ordered to enter into his own recognizance in the
sum of 1000l., and two sureties in 500l. each.
At the session of the Central Criminal Court, Mr.
Adolphus, in behalf of the Earl of Cardigan, this
day begged leave to ask the judges on the bench
a question, before their lordships proceeded to the
business of the day. He found, he said, that on
the list of causes to be tried, there appeared
against the seventh, the name of James Thomas
Brudenell, Earl of Cardigan. Now, Lord Cardigan,
being a peer of the realm, could not be tried
in that court. He therefore submitted, that the
name of the noble Earl should be taken from
the list. Mr. Justice Bosanquet and Mr. Justice
Erskine agreed, that the course would be to remove
the indictment, by a writ of certiorari, into
the Court of the Lord High Steward, and that it
would be very inconvenient to try the case of
Captain Douglas before that of Lord Cardigan.
It was finally arranged, that the recognizances of
all the parties should be respited until the next
session.
366February 16.
TRIAL OF THE EARL OF CARDIGAN, BEFORE THE HOUSE
OF LORDS, IN FULL PARLIAMENT, FOR FELONY.
A little before eleven o’clock. Lord Denman,
in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, on account
of indisposition, entered the House of Lords in his
robes, preceded by the Sergeant with the mace,
Black Rod carrying the Lord High Steward’s
staff, and Garter with the sceptre, and took his
seat on the woolsack as Lord Speaker. After
prayers the roll of peers was called over, beginning
with the junior Baron; after which, the
Clerk of the Crown in Chancery delivered the
commission to the Lord Speaker, who gave it the
Deputy Clerk of the Crown in the Queen’s Bench
to read; which he did, the peers standing. The
commission authorised their lordships to proceed
with the trial of James Thomas Earl of Cardigan,
on an indictment found against him for felony,
which had been removed before them by certiorari,
and appointed Lord Denman Lord High
Steward. After the writ of certiorari and the
record of the indictment had been read, proclamation
was made for the Yeoman Usher to bring
the Earl of Cardigan to the bar. On approaching
it, he made three reverences, and knelt till directed
by the Lord High Steward to rise. He then
made three reverences, one to the Lord High
Steward, and one to the peers on each side: after
367which, he was conducted to the stool provided for
him within the bar, near to his counsel. The
Lord High Steward informed him, that he was
charged with the offence of firing with a loaded
pistol at Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, with
intent to murder him; in a second count with
firing with intent to maim and disable him; and
in a third count with firing with intent to do him
some grievous bodily harm. Being then arraigned
by the Deputy Clerk of the Crown, and asked
whether he was guilty of the said felony, and
how he would be tried, the Earl answered, “By
my Peers.” The Attorney-General and Mr.
Waddington appeared as counsel for the prosecution;
and Sir William Follett, Mr. sergeant
Wrangham, and Mr. Adolphus, for the Earl of
Cardigan. Mr. Waddington having opened the
indictment.
The Attorney-General then addressed their
lordships as follows:—“I have the honour to
attend your lordships on this occasion as Attorney-General
for her Majesty, to lay before you
the circumstances of the case upon which you
will be called to pronounce judgment, without
any object or wish on my part, except that I may
humbly assist your lordships in coming to a right
conclusion upon it, according to its merits. An
indictment has been found against a peer of the
realm by a grand jury of the country, charging him
with a felony, the punishment of which is transportation
368or imprisonment. That indictment has
been removed before your lordships, at the request
of the noble prisoner; and, I must say, most
properly removed; for an inferior court had no
jurisdiction to try him. The charge is, upon the
face of it, of a most serious character, and it
would not have been satisfactory if it had gone off
without any inquiry. The policeman, however,
who was bound over to prosecute, fulfilled his recognizances
by appearing at the Central Criminal
Court, and preferring the indictment.—It is possible,
my Lords, that in the course of this trial, questions
of great magnitude on the construction of
acts of parliament, or respecting the privileges of
the peerage, may arise, which it is of great importance
to this House, to the Crown, and to the
community, should be deliberately discussed.
According to all the precedents that can be found,
whenever a peer has been tried in parliament, the
prosecution has been conducted by the law-officers
of the Crown. Fortunately, we have no living
memory on this subject. It is now sixty-four
years since any proceeding of this sort has taken
place; and I am rejoiced to think, that on the present
occasion the charge against the noble prisoner
at the bar does not imply any degree of moral
turpitude, and that, if he should be found guilty,
his conviction will reflect no discredit on the illustrious
order to which he belongs. At the same
time, my Lords, it clearly appears to me, that he
369has been guilty of infringing the statute law of
the realm, which this and all other courts of justice
are bound to respect and enforce. Your lordships
are not sitting as a court of honour, or as
a branch of the legislature: your lordships are
sitting here as a court bound by the rules of law,
and under a sanction as sacred as that of an oath.
“My Lords, the indictment against the Earl of
Cardigan is framed upon an act of parliament
which passed in the first year of the reign of her
present Majesty. It charges the noble defendant
with having shot at Captain Harvey Tuckett,
with the several intents set forth in the indictment.
I think I shall best discharge my duty to
your lordships by presenting to you a brief history
of the law on this subject. By the common
law of England, personal violence, where death
did not ensue from it, amounted to a mere misdemeanour;
and, if the wounded party did not die
within a year and a day, no felony was committed.
The first act which created a felony where
death did not ensue was the 5th of Henry IV.
cap. 5. By that act certain personal injuries
without death were made felonies, with benefit of
clergy. Then came the Coventry Act, in the 22nd
and 23rd of Charles II, whereby any person
lying in wait for, and wounding another with
intent to maim or disfigure, was guilty of felony,
without benefit of clergy. Under both these acts
no offence was committed unless a wound was
370inflicted; and it was not until the 9th of George
I, commonly called the Black Act, that an attempt,
where no wound was given, was made a felony.
By that act it was enacted, that if any person
should wilfully and maliciously shoot at any person
in any dwelling-house or other place, he should
be guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy,
although no wound were inflicted: but it was
determined upon that statute,—and in fairness to
the noble prisoner it is my duty to remind your
lordships of it,—that unless the case was one in
which, if death had ensued, it would have
amounted to murder, no offence was committed
under the statute. That was determined in the
case of the King and Gastineaux, which is reported
in the first volume of Leach’s Crown
Cases, page 417. In that case the law was thus
laid down:—‘The offence charged in this indictment
is described by the statute on which it is
framed, in very few and very clear words, which
are—That if any person or persons shall wilfully
and maliciously shoot at any person in any dwelling-house
or other place, he shall be adjudged
guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy. The
word ‘maliciously’ is made to constitute the very
essence of this crime; no act of shooting, therefore,
will amount, under this statute, to a capital
offence, unless it be accompanied with such circumstances
as, in construction of law, would have
amounted to the crime of murder if death had
371ensued from such act. This proposition most
clearly and unavoidably results from the legal interpretation
of the word “maliciously,” as applied
to this subject; for there is no species of homicide
in which malice forms any ingredient but
that of murder; and it follows that neither an
accidental shooting, nor a shooting in the transport
of passion, excited by such a degree of provocation
as will reduce homicide to the offence
of manslaughter, are within the meaning of the
statute; for from both of these cases the law
excludes every idea of malice.’ The law continued
on this footing until an act was passed
in the 43rd of George III, which is commonly
called Lord Ellenborough’s Act. This act did
not repeal the Black Act, but greatly extended its
operation, and among other enactments contains
this:—‘That if any person or persons shall wilfully,
maliciously, and unlawfully shoot at any
of his Majesty’s subjects, or shall wilfully, maliciously,
and unlawfully present, point, or level any
kind of loaded fire-arms at any of his Majesty’s
subjects, and attempt, by drawing a trigger or in
any other manner, to discharge the same at or
against his or their person or persons, or shall
wilfully, maliciously, or unlawfully stab or cut
any of his Majesty’s subjects, with intent in so
doing, or by means thereof, to murder, or rob, or
to maim, disfigure, or disable such his Majesty’s
subject or subjects, or with intent to do some
372other grievous bodily harm to such his Majesty’s
subject or subjects, shall be guilty of felony, without
benefit of clergy.’ This act, however, has
the following express proviso:—‘Provided always,
that in case it shall appear on the trial of
any person or persons indicted for the wilfully,
maliciously, and unlawfully shooting at any of
his Majesty’s subjects, that if death had ensued
therefrom the same would not in law have
amounted to the crime of murder; that then and
in every such case the person or persons so indicted
shall be deemed and taken to be not
guilty of the felonies whereof they shall be so
indicted, but be thereof acquitted.’ Your lordships
will observe, that by this act it is made a
capital offence to shoot at, with intent to murder,
or maim, disfigure, or do grievous bodily harm;
but the offence came within the statute only
when, if death should have ensued, it would have
amounted to the crime of murder.
“Next came the statute of the 9th of George
IV. cap. 31, which, I believe, is generally called
Lord Lansdowne’s Act; that noble Lord having
introduced it into parliament when he was Secretary
of State for the Home Department. This is
entitled ‘An Act to consolidate and amend the
statutes relating to offences against the person.’
It repeals the Black Act and Lord Ellenborough’s
Act, but it contains provisions similar to those of
the latter. The eleventh section enacts, ‘That
373if any person unlawfully and maliciously shoot
at any person, with intent to maim, disfigure, or
disable such person, or do some other grievous
bodily harm to such person, he shall be guilty of
felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall suffer
death as a felon.’ But this act contains the same
proviso as was inserted in Lord Ellenborough’s
Act, ‘That in case it shall appear on the trial of
any person, that, if death had ensued therefrom,
the same would not have amounted to the crime
of murder, the person so indicted shall be acquitted
of felony.’ Still it remained a capital offence
to shoot at with intent to murder, or maim, or
disfigure, or do bodily harm, although no wound
was inflicted.
“Things remained on this footing until the act
was passed on which the present indictment was
framed. This act, which received the royal
assent on the 17th of July 1837, is the 1st of
Victoria, cap. 85, and is entitled, ‘An Act to
amend the laws relating to offences against the
person.’ The preamble recites that ‘it is expedient
to amend so much of the act of the 9th
of George IV. as relates to any person who
shall unlawfully and maliciously shoot at any
person, or who shall, by drawing a trigger, or in
any other manner, attempt to discharge any kind
of loaded arms at any person,’ &c.; and by the
second and third section it enacts, ‘That whosoever
shall stab, cut, or wound any person, or
374shall, by any means whatsoever, cause to any
person any bodily injury dangerous to life, with
intent in any of the cases aforesaid to commit
murder, shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted,
shall suffer death.’ Therefore, by this
act, to shoot at a person and inflict a wound dangerous
to life remains a capital offence; but the
act of shooting, when no wound is inflicted, is
no longer a capital offence, and remains a felony
only, punishable with transportation or imprisonment.
The fourth section enacts, ‘That whosoever
unlawfully and maliciously shall shoot at
any person, or shall, by drawing a trigger, attempt
to discharge any kind of loaded arms at
any person, with intent to maim, disfigure, or
disable such person, or do some other grievous
bodily harm to such person, he shall be guilty of
felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be
liable to be transported beyond the seas,’ &c.
This act contains no such proviso as is to be
found in Lord Ellenborough’s Act, and that of
the 9th of George IV.; a circumstance which it
is material your lordships should bear in mind,
when you come to deliberate on your judgment
with regard to the second and third counts of the
indictment.
“My Lords, I am happy to say that the indictment
contains no count on the capital charge:
a wound was inflicted; but the prosecutor has
very properly restricted the charge to firing at,
375with intent, without alleging that any wound
dangerous to life was inflicted. The first count
charges, that the Earl of Cardigan shot at Captain
Tuckett with intent, in the language of the
law, to commit the crime of murder. The second
count charges the Earl of Cardigan with the same
act, with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable
Captain Tuckett; and the third count charges
his lordship with the same act, with intent to
do some grievous bodily harm. It will be for
your lordships to say whether, upon the facts
which I shall lay before you, and which I am
instructed to say can be clearly made out in
evidence, each and every one of the counts must
not be considered as fully established. The substance
of the evidence in this case is, that on
the 12th of September last the Earl of Cardigan
fought a duel with pistols, on Wimbledon
Common, with Captain Tuckett, and wounded
him at the second exchange of shots. It will
appear that, about five o’clock in the afternoon
of that day, two carriages, coming in opposite
directions, were seen to arrive on Wimbledon
Common, and a party of gentlemen alighted
from each. It was evident to those who observed
what was going on, that a duel was in contemplation.
The parties went to a part of the common
between the road that leads to Lord Spencer’s
park and a windmill. The seconds made
the usual preparations: the principals, the Earl
376of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett, were placed
at a distance of about twelve yards; they exchanged
shots without effect; they received from
their seconds each another pistol; they again
fired, and Captain Tuckett was wounded by the
Earl of Cardigan. Mr. Dann, who occupied the
mill, his son, and Sir James Anderson, a surgeon,
who was standing close by, went up immediately.
The wound was examined, it bled freely; but
fortunately—and I am sure no one rejoices at
the circumstance more than the noble prisoner—it
proved to be not of a dangerous nature. Mr.
Dann, the miller, who was a constable, took the
whole party into custody. The wound was again
formally examined, and Sir James Anderson
pressed that he might be set at liberty, and
allowed to take Captain Tuckett to his house
in London; which was immediately acceded to,
upon the Captain’s promising to appear before
the magistrates, when he was recovered. The
miller retained the Earl of Cardigan, and his
second, Captain Douglas, as well as Captain
Wainwright, the second of Captain Tuckett.
The Earl of Cardigan had still a pistol in his
hand when the miller approached him; and two
cases of pistols were on the ground, one of which
bore the crest of the noble Earl, and was claimed
by him as his property. The parties in custody
were conducted before the magistrates at Wandsworth,
when the Earl of Cardigan made use of
377these words:—‘I have fought a duel; I have
hit my man, I believe not seriously.’ Then,
pointing to Captain Douglas, he said, ‘This gentleman
is also a prisoner, and my second.’ He
was asked whether the person he had hit was
Captain Reynolds; upon which he replied, ‘Do
you think I would condescend to fight with one
of my own officers?’ His lordship was compelled
by the magistrates to enter into recognizances
to appear when called upon; which he
did from time to time, till at last the matter
was carried to the Central Criminal Court. The
witnesses I shall call before your lordships are the
miller, his wife and son, and the policeman named
Busain, who was at the station-house, and will
speak to the declarations made by the Earl of
Cardigan. I can offer no evidence respecting
the origin of the quarrel. Captain Douglas is
to take his trial for his share in the transaction:
he, as your lordships will observe, is jointly indicted
with the Earl of Cardigan. A bill was
also preferred against Captain Tuckett and Captain
Wainwright, but the grand jury had thrown
it out. Those gentlemen, however, are still liable
to be tried; and it would not be decorous to summon
them before your lordships, to give evidence
which might afterwards be turned against themselves
when they would be on trial for their
lives. I shall call Sir James Anderson, who has
hitherto spoken fairly on the subject, and, I suppose,
378will now make no objection to state all that
fell within his observation.
“Upon these facts it will be for your lordships
to say whether all the counts of the indictment
are not fully proved and supported.
With respect to the first count, it is painful to
use the language which it necessarily recites;
but it will be for your lordships to say whether,
in point of law, the noble prisoner at the bar
did not shoot at Captain Tuckett with intent
to commit the crime therein mentioned. I at
once acquit the Earl of Cardigan of anything
unfair in the conduct of this duel. Something
has been said respecting the noble Earl’s pistols
having rifle barrels, while those of Captain
Tuckett had not such barrels. However that
may have been, I have the most perfect conviction,
that nothing but what was fair and honourable
was intended; and that the Earl of Cardigan
most probably imagined, when he carried
his pistols to the field with him, that one of
them would be directed against his own person.
Nor do I suppose that there was any grudge,
any personal animosity, any rancour or malignity,
on the part of the noble Earl towards his antagonist.
Whether the noble Earl gave or received
the invitation to go out, I believe his
only object was to preserve his reputation, and
maintain his station in society as an officer and
a gentleman. His lordship is in the army; he
379is Lieutenant-Colonel of the 11th Hussars; and
no doubt he, on this occasion, only complied
with what he considered to be necessary to be
done, according to the usages of society. But,
if death had ensued under these circumstances,
it would have been a great calamity; and, although
moralists of high name have excused and
even defended the practice of duelling, your
lordships must consider what, in this respect, is
the law of England. There can be no doubt
that, by the law of England, parties who go out
deliberately to fight a duel, if death ensues, are
guilty of murder. It will be my duty to state
to your lordships a few of the leading authorities
on this point. I will mention the highest
authorities known to the law of England—Hale,
Hawkins, Foster, and Blackstone. Hale, in his
Pleas of the Crown, vol. i. page 453, says:—‘If
A and B suddenly fall out, and they presently
agree to fight in a field, and run and
fetch their weapons, and go to the field and fight,
and A kills B, this is not murder, but homicide;
for it is but a continuance of the sudden
falling out, and the blood was never cooled; but
if there were deliberation, as that they went on
the next day,—nay, though it was the same day,
if there were such a competent distance of time
that in common presumption they had time of
deliberation,—then it is murder.’ In the first
volume of Hawkins’s Pleas of the Crown, c. 31,
380sec. 21, the law on this subject is thus laid down:—‘It
seems agreed, that whenever two persons in
cool blood meet and fight on a precedent quarrel,
and one of them is killed, the other is guilty of
murder, and cannot help himself by alleging that
he was struck first by the deceased; or that he
had often declined to meet him, and was prevailed
upon to do it by his importunity; or that
it was his intent only to vindicate his reputation;
or that he meant not to kill, but only to disarm
his adversary; for, since he deliberately engaged
in an act highly unlawful, in defiance of the laws,
he must, at his peril, abide the consequence thereof.
And from hence it follows, that if two persons
quarrel over-night, and appoint to fight next
day, or quarrel in the morning and agree to fight
in the afternoon, or such a considerable time after,
by which, in common intendment, it must be presumed
that the blood was cooled, and then they
meet and fight, and one kills the other, he is
guilty of murder. And whenever it appears, from
the whole circumstances, that he who kills another
on a sudden quarrel, was master of his temper at
the time, he is guilty of murder; as if, after the
quarrel, he fall into a discourse, and talks calmly
thereon; or, perhaps, if he have so much consideration
as to say that the place wherein the
quarrel happens is not convenient for fighting, or
that, if he should fight at present, he should have
the disadvantage by reason of the height of his
381shoes.’ The last observation refers to Lord Morley’s
case, where, though a case of manslaughter,
it was a circumstance strongly pressed to show
that the offence was one of a deeper dye. Sir
Michael Foster, in his Discourse on Homicide,
says:—‘Upon this principle, deliberate duelling,
if death ensues, is, in the eye of the law, murder;
because duels are generally founded on a feeling
of revenge: and though a person should be drawn
into a duel upon a motive not so criminal, but
merely upon the punctilio of what the swordsmen
call honour, that is no excuse; for those who deliberately
seek the blood of another, act in defiance
of all laws, human and divine. But if, on a
sudden quarrel, they fight upon the spot, or if
they presently fetch their weapons, and go into a
field and fight, and one of them falleth, that is
but manslaughter, because it may be presumed
the blood never cooled. It will be otherwise
if the parties appoint the next day to fight, or
even the same day, at such an interval as that the
passion may have subsided, or if, from any circumstances
attending the case, it may reasonably
be presumed that their judgment had controlled
the first transports of passion before they engaged.
The same rule will hold if, after a quarrel, the
parties fall into other discourse or diversions, and
continue so engaged as to afford reasonable time
for cooling.’ Blackstone, in his fourth volume,
page 199, thus writes, when describing and defining
382the crime of murder:—‘This takes in the
case of deliberate duelling, where both parties
meet avowedly with an intent to murder; thinking
it their duty, as gentlemen, and claiming it as
their right, to wanton with their own lives and
those of their fellow-creatures; without any warrant
or authority from any power, either divine or
human, but in direct contradiction to the laws
both of God and man; and therefore the law has
justly fixed the crime and punishment of murder
on them, and on their seconds also.’
“My Lords, these are the highest authorities
known to the law of England, and they are uniformly
followed by the English judges. The
most recent cases of this nature which have occurred
within the last few years, are those of Sir
John Jeffcott,[8] and the parties concerned in the
death of Mr. Mirfin; and in these the doctrine I
have stated to your lordships was laid down and
acted upon strictly. Such, then, being the definition
of murder constantly given from the bench
on trials for life and death, are not your lordships
to suppose that the legislature has made use
of the word ‘murder’ in the same sense; and that
when we find in Lord Ellenborough’s Act, in the
9th of Geo. IV. and in this of the 1st of Victoria,
the expression ‘with intent to commit murder,’ it
means with intent to do that which, if accomplished,
would amount in law to the crime of
383murder? The legislature, and your lordships as
part of it, must be taken to have well known
what was the legal definition of murder, and to
have used the expression, in a judicial act, in its
legal sense. Then, my Lords, however painful
the consideration may be, does it not necessarily
follow, that the first count of the indictment is
completely found? The circumstances clearly
show that the Earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett
met by appointment. The arrangements being
completed, they fired twice; the Earl of Cardigan
took deliberate aim, fired, and wounded his antagonist.
He must be supposed to have intended
that which he did. If, unfortunately, death had
ensued, would not this have been a case of murder?
The only supposition by which the case
could be reduced to one of manslaughter would
be, that the Earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett
met casually on Wimbledon Common; that
they suddenly quarreled; and that, whilst their
blood was hot, they fought; but your lordships
will hardly strain the facts so far as to say that
this was a casual meeting, when you see that each
party was accompanied by a second, and supplied
with a brace of pistols, and that the whole affair
was conducted according to the forms and solemnities
observed when a deliberate duel is
fought.—With respect to the second and third
counts, I know not what defence can possibly be
suggested; because, even if it had been a casual
384meeting, and if death had ensued under circumstances
which would have amounted only to manslaughter,
that would be no defence to the second
and third counts. I presume to assert that, on
the authority of a case which came before the fifteen
judges of England, and which was decided;
two most learned judges doubting on the occasion,
but not dissenting from the decision. The two
judges who doubted, were his Grace the Lord
High Steward, who presides over your lordships’
proceedings on this occasion, and Mr. Justice Littledale.
It would not become me to say anything
of the learning and ability of the noble High
Steward in his presence; but, with respect to Mr.
Justice Littledale, I will say, that there never was
a more learned or acute judge than he was, whose
retirement from the bench the bar has lately witnessed
with reluctance and regret. I therefore
attach the greatest weight to any doubts proceeding
from such a quarter; but the thirteen other
judges entertained no doubt upon that occasion,
and came to the conclusion, that, upon the fourth
section of the act upon which the present indictment
was framed, it is not necessary for a conviction,
that if death ensued the offence should
amount to murder. The case to which I refer is
to be found in the second volume of Moody’s
Crown Cases, page 40. It was a case tried before
Mr. Baron Parke, on the Norfolk Spring Circuit,
in 1838.”
The Lord High Steward.—“What is the
name?”
The Attorney-General.—“The case is anonymous,
the name of the prisoner not being given;
but it is an authentic case, and the point in doubt
is clearly set forth in the question submitted to
the fifteen judges. I will read what is material
to your lordships:—‘The opinion of the judges
is requested by Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Baron
Bolland, upon two questions which arose in the
Norfolk Spring circuit, 1838.’ The first question
only is material. The case first recites the 9th
George IV. sec. 11 and 12, and the preamble and
enacting part of 1st Victoria; points out the circumstance
that the latter act does not contain
the same proviso as is found in those of Lords
Ellenborough and Lansdowne; and then submits
this question for the opinion of the judges:—‘Is it
now a defence to an indictment for wounding
with intent to maim, &c. that, if death had ensued,
the offence would not have been murder,
but manslaughter?’ Your lordships will observe,
that shooting at, with intent to maim or disable,
and stabbing with the same intent, are in the
same category, and must be attended with all
the same rules and incidents. This opinion will
therefore have the same authority as if the question
submitted by Barons Parke and Bolland had
been whether, on an indictment for shooting at,
with intent to disable, it would be a defence to
386show, that, if death had ensued, the offence would
not have amounted to murder. The opinion of
the judges was as follows:—‘At a meeting of the
judges in Easter term, 1838, they all thought it
to be now no defence to such an indictment, that,
if death had ensued, the offence would not have
been murder, but manslaughter; except the Lord
Chief Justice, Lord Denman, and Mr. Justice
Littledale.’ The Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice
Littledale, it will be observed, did not dissent,
they only doubted; but the other thirteen judges
seem clearly to hold, that the plea set forth does
not now amount to any defence; and I apprehend
that the judges probably reasoned in this
manner,—the intention of the legislature being
to make offences which before were capital, punishable
only with transportation or imprisonment,
the quality of the offence is not precisely
the same as before; and that if a person maims
another or disables him, or does him some grievous
bodily harm, even though it were an unpremeditated
act, arising out of a sudden scuffle,
it should nevertheless be an offence under this
act, which gives a discretionary power to the
court before whom the offence is tried, either to
transport for fifteen years, or to imprison for a
single hour. The judges, doubtless, considering
this discretionary power, and the omission of the
proviso which was in the preceding acts,—seeing
that the capital punishment was abolished,—came
387to the conclusion that the offence was committed,
though, if death had ensued, it would not under
the circumstances have amounted to the crime
of murder. Looking to the authority of this
case, I know not what defence can possibly be
urged with respect to the second and third counts.
I rejoice, my Lords, to think the noble prisoner
will have an advantage upon this occasion, which
has never before been enjoyed by any peer who
has been tried at your lordships’ bar; an advantage
which neither Lord Lovat, Lord Byron, Lord
Ferrers, nor the Duchess of Kingston could claim.
He will have the advantage of the assistance of
my most able, ingenious, zealous, and learned
friend. Sir William Follett, who will address your
lordships in his behalf upon the facts and merits
of the case. This privilege is secured to the noble
prisoner under that most admirable law which
your lordships passed a few years ago, by which,
in all cases of felony, the party accused has the
advantage of addressing, through his counsel, the
tribunal which is to determine on his guilt or
innocence. Notwithstanding, however, all the
learning, ability, and zeal of my honourable and
learned friend, I know not how he will be able to
persuade your lordships to acquit his noble client
on any one count of this indictment. My learned
friend will not ask your lordships—and if he did,
he would ask you in vain—to forget the law by
which you are bound. My Lord, Captain Douglas
388stands on his trial before another tribunal, and
his trial has been postponed by the judges, on the
express ground that the same case is first to be
tried by the highest criminal court known in the
empire. Your lordships are to lay down the law
by which all inferior courts are to be bound.
I beg leave, on this subject, to read the words
made use of at this bar by one of the most distinguished
of my predecessors, who afterwards, for
many years, presided with great dignity on the
woolsack—I mean Lord Thurlow. When Lord
Thurlow was Attorney-General, in addressing
this House, in the case of the Duchess of Kingston,
he made use of this language:—‘I do desire
to press this upon your lordships as a universal
maxim; no more dangerous idea can creep into
the mind of a judge, than the imagination that
he is wiser than the law. I confine this to no
judge, whatever may be his denomination, but
extend it to all; and, speaking at the bar of an
English court of justice, I make sure of your
lordships’ approbation when I comprise even your
lordships, sitting in Westminster Hall. It is a
grievous example to other judges. If your lordships
assume this, sitting in judgment, why not
the King’s Bench? Why not commissioners of
oyer and terminer? If they do so, why not the
quarter-sessions? Ingenious men may strain the
law very far; but to pervert it, was to new-model it.
The genius of our constitution says, judges have
389no such authority, nor shall presume to exercise
it.’ I conclude, my Lords, with the respectful
expression of my conviction, that your lordships’
judgment in this case, whatever it may be, will
be according to the law and justice of the case;
and that you will preserve the high reputation, in
the exercise of your judicial functions, which has
so long been enjoyed by your lordships and your
ancestors.”—The honourable and learned gentleman
then bowed to their lordships, and was about
to withdraw, when he again turned to the House
and said: “Will your lordships allow me to
mention, that, on account of the sudden illness of
my learned friend, the Solicitor-General, he is deprived
of the honour of attending to-day before
your lordships, as he had intended.”
Thomas Hunt Dann, the miller at Wimbledon,
was then examined by Mr. Waddington, and deposed
to the facts, as described by the Attorney-General.
He said, he consented to allow the
wounded gentleman to go home, on his giving
him a card, with the address of the party upon
it.—After which, the Attorney-General offered to
give in as evidence the card which the witness
received.—Sir William Follett objected to the
reading of it as evidence; and, after considerable
discussion, the Lord High Steward proposed to
postpone the consideration of the objection.—The
son and wife of the miller were then examined;
after which, Sir James Anderson being sworn,
390the Lord High Steward said:—“With the permission
of the House, I think it my duty to
inform you, that, after the opening we have
heard from the Attorney-General, you are not
bound to answer any question which may tend
to criminate yourself.” Sir James was then thus
examined by the Attorney-General:—“Of what
profession are you?”—“I am a physician.”—“Where
do you live?”—“In New Burlington
Street.”—“Are you acquainted with Captain
Tuckett?”—“I must decline answering that question.”—“Were
you on Wimbledon Common on
the 12th of September?”—“I must decline answering
that also.” (Laughter.)—“Were you on
that day called on to attend any gentleman that
was wounded?”—“I must decline that again.”
(Laughter.)—“Can you tell where Captain Tuckett
lives?”—“I must decline the question.”—“Has
he a house in London?”—“I decline answering
that question.” (Laughter.)—“Do you
decline answering any question whatever respecting
Captain Tuckett?”—“Any question that
may criminate myself.”—“And you consider answering
any question respecting Captain Tuckett
may tend to criminate you?”—“Possibly it
would.”—“And on that ground you decline?”—“I
do.”
John Busain, an inspector of the metropolitan
police, was examined by the Attorney-General.
He deposed, that he was on duty when Lord
391Cardigan and Captain Douglas came to the station-house
at Wandsworth, on the evening of
the 12th of September.—“I bowed, and asked his
business. He said he was a prisoner, he believed.
‘Indeed, sir,’ said I; ‘on what account?’ His
lordship said, ‘I have been fighting a duel, and
I have hit my man; but not seriously, I believe;
slightly, merely a graze across the back.’ He
then pointed over his shoulder and looked over,
and said, ‘This gentleman also is a prisoner;
my second. Captain Douglas.’ He presented
me with his card, and I saw ‘The Earl of Cardigan,
of the 11th Dragoons.’ I then alluded
to the duel, and said, ‘Not with Captain Reynolds,
I hope?’ and his lordship spurned the
idea of fighting a duel with one of his own
officers.” On being desired to repeat the words
of the Earl of Cardigan, the witness said, “To
the best of my recollection his lordship’s reply
was—when I said I hoped it was not with Captain
Reynolds, he stood up erect, and seemed
to reject it, by his action, with the utmost disdain,
and said, ‘Oh, no; do you suppose I would
fight with one of my own officers?’ These were
the words, to the best of my recollection.”
Charles William Walthew, chemist, residing
at No. 29, in the Poultry, deposed, that Captain
Tuckett occupied rooms in his house, and had
carried on business there for fifteen months.
His residence was at No. 13, Hamilton Place,
392New Road. On being asked to tell what the
Captain’s Christian names were, if he knew them,
Sir William Follett objected to this course of
examination. Their lordships, he said, observed
the question put: his learned friend had asked
where Captain Tuckett lived, and the answer
was, No. 13, Hamilton Place, New Road, for
the purpose of identifying this Captain Tuckett,
who carried on business in the Poultry, with a
Captain Tuckett who lived in that place. The
Lord High Steward agreed that there was no
proof at present that that person lived at No. 13,
Hamilton Place, New Road. The examination
was not proceeded with. The last witness called
was Edward Septimus Codd. He said he knew
Captain Tuckett, of the 11th Light Dragoons.
His Christian name was Harvey Garnett Phipps
Tuckett.
The Attorney-General said, he would now,
with their lordships’ permission, propose to read
the card, upon which their lordships had been
pleased to say that they would consider whether
it was admissible or not. On being asked by
Lord Brougham whether that was his case, he
replied, that he should first wish to know whether
the card was to be received or rejected. Sir
William Follett requested to see the card; and,
having examined it, he said he did not think
it necessary to object to its being read. It was
accordingly delivered in and read. Upon one
393side was engraved “Captain Harvey Tuckett,
13, Hamilton Place, New Road;” and on the other
was written “Captain H. Wainwright.” The
Attorney-General said that that was the case
on the part of the prosecution.
Sir William Follett.—“This being the case on
the part of the prosecution, I venture to submit
to your lordships, that there is no case which
calls on the prisoner for an answer; and I think
your lordships will see at once, that the counsel
for the prosecution have failed in proving an essential
part of their case. My Lords, I apprehend
it is not necessary to cite any authority to show
that the prosecutor is bound to prove the Christian
and surname of the person against whom the
alleged offence is committed; and that if he fails
to prove either the Christian or the surname, he
fails in his case. Now, there is no evidence
whatever to show that the person against whom
the shot was discharged was Harvey Garnett
Phipps Tuckett. The evidence before your lordships
would rather lead to a contrary presumption,
if presumption could be acted upon in a
case like this. I apprehend that positive evidence
must be given to prove the identity of
the party. The evidence is this,—the counsel
for the prosecution have called a person named
Codd, who is an army-agent, and who receives
the half-pay of a Captain Tuckett, who was
formerly in the 11th Dragoons, and is named
394Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett. Is there anything
in this evidence to identify that Captain
Tuckett with the person alleged to have been
on Wimbledon Common on the 12th of September?
Mr. Codd does not know where that Captain
Tuckett lives; he never saw him except at
his office in Fludyer Street, and at an insurance
office. What is the rest of the evidence on this
point? A person who lives in the Poultry says
that a Captain Harvey Tuckett rents offices of
him, but that he does not know where he lives.
There is, therefore, not an iota, not a scintilla
of evidence, to connect that Captain Tuckett
with the gentleman supposed to be engaged in
this transaction. I therefore submit that my
learned friends have entirely failed in an essential
part of the case for the prosecution. I would
beg leave to refer your lordships to the case of the
King v. Robinson, in Holt’s Reports, p. 595, in
which it is laid down that it is essentially necessary
to prove the Christian and surname of
the party against whom the offence is alleged
to have been committed, and there is no proof
of his Christian name in this case.”
The Attorney-General.—“My Lords, the question
is, whether there is any evidence whatever to
prove the fact of the Christian name of Captain
Tuckett, the gentleman wounded. If there is
the smallest scintilla of evidence on this point, the
prosecution cannot be stopped on the ground
395taken up by my learned friend. We are now as
if we were before a jury, and the learned judge
who presided were called upon to direct an acquittal,
upon the ground that there was no evidence
for their consideration. I submit to your
lordships, that there is abundant evidence to show
that the name of the party wounded is Harvey
Garnett Phipps Tuckett. How does the case
stand? My learned friend withdrew all objection
to the reading of the card. Well, then, the gentleman
who was wounded by Lord Cardigan on
the 12th of September, was Captain Harvey Tuckett.
We have got, therefore, one of his names;
and how does the case stand with regard to the
rest? Am I obliged to call the clerk of the
parish where he was baptised, in order to prove
his baptismal register? Am I to call his father
or his mother, or his godfathers or godmothers, to
prove the name that was given to him at the baptismal
font? I apprehend that such evidence is
wholly unnecessary. I contend that, from the
facts proved, there is abundant evidence to show
the identity of the party wounded was Captain
Harvey Tuckett. I suppose my learned friend
will not deny that there is abundant evidence to
show that the Captain Tuckett who was wounded
lived at No. 13, Hamilton Place, New Road. One
of the witnesses called there three times; he asks
each time for Captain Tuckett, and each time he
is introduced to a gentleman bearing that name.
Your lordships, therefore, will have no doubt that
396the Captain Tuckett who lives at No. 13, Hamilton
Place, New Road, is the one who fought the
duel with Lord Cardigan on the 12th of September,
on Wimbledon Common. Now, my Lords,
we go by steps. Is there any doubt that this
Captain Tuckett is the Captain Tuckett who took
the offices in the Poultry? At the time he did
so, he gave a reference to No. 13, Hamilton Place,
New Road; and your lordships will therefore feel,
no doubt, that there is evidence to show that the
Captain Tuckett who took the place of business
in the Poultry, was the same who lived in Hamilton
Place. Then we have only one other stage,
and that is to see whether the Captain Tuckett is
the Captain Tuckett of whom Mr. Codd spoke,
whose name he proved to be Harvey Garnett
Phipps Tuckett, and who had been an officer of
the 11th Dragoons, of which regiment the Earl
of Cardigan was, and still is, the colonel.”
Sir W. Follett.—“There is no proof of that
whatever.”
The Attorney-General.—“It was so stated, and
the witness was not cross-examined. Well, then,
my Lords, a Captain Tuckett, whose name is
Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, was proved by
Mr. Codd to have been an officer of the 11th
Hussars, Lord Cardigan’s regiment. He gave his
card, with the 11th Hussars upon it.”
Sir W. Follett.—“No, no; you are quite mistaken.”
The Attorney-General.—“Well, he has one name
397at least corresponding with that of the Captain
Tuckett who fought the duel on Wimbledon
Common. Will your lordships require strict evidence
of this gentleman’s Christian name—evidence
that will amount to a demonstration? If
there is evidence from which the inference may
be fairly drawn, is not that sufficient? Well, then,
here is a Captain Tuckett, whose name is proved
to be Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, who has
been in the 11th Hussars, from which he retired
three or four years ago, and who receives his half-pay
quarterly from Mr. Codd, his agent. May it
not be fairly inferred from these circumstances,
that this was the same Captain Tuckett who had
offices in the Poultry, and who had fought a duel?
Is there not evidence from which that identity
may be fairly inferred? Is the prosecution to be
stopped on the ground that there is no evidence
whatever to go to a jury, or to your lordships, that
this Captain Tuckett, whose name is proved to
be Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, is the same
who was the antagonist of the Earl of Cardigan
on the 12th September? I believe there is no
reasonable being, who, having heard this evidence
out of a court of justice, would hesitate in drawing
the inference. I apprehend, that what is sufficient
to convince a reasonable man out of a court
of justice ought to be sufficient to convince a
judge or judges sitting in a court of justice, if the
inference which is to be drawn can be drawn according
to the rules of evidence. Now, according
398to the rules of evidence, would any person out of
a court of justice doubt for a moment that this is
the same individual who fought on the 12th of
September? Well, then, if that inference would
be drawn out of a court of justice, can it be said
that in a court of justice there is not a scintilla of
evidence from which such an inference can be
drawn? This would be a most unsatisfactory
conclusion of such a trial. Your lordships will
weigh the evidence maturely and deliberately,
and if you think that it is not sufficient to convict
the noble Lord at the bar, of course you will acquit
him, and will say, ‘Not guilty, upon my honour,’
but you will not stop the prosecution upon an
objection like this.”
Sir W. Follett.—“My Lords, I will trouble your
lordships with a very few words in reply to the
observations of the Attorney-General. It may be
a very unsatisfactory termination of this case after
all the care and trouble which has been bestowed
upon the prosecution, but I apprehend that this is
not a case in which the noble lord at the bar will
have to appeal to the honour or the conscience of
his peers. The question is, whether sufficient evidence
of identity has been given. My learned
friend asks whether he is to call the clerk of the
parish, or the father or mother of Captain Tuckett,
to prove his Christian name. Now, that is not the
objection, and the Attorney-General knows it
perfectly well. What we object to is, that the
counsel for the prosecution have called a person
399of the name of Codd, who has proved that he was
acquainted with a Captain Harvey Garnett Phipps
Tuckett, but there is not a scintilla of evidence to
connect that Captain Tuckett with the gentleman
who fought the duel on Wimbledon Common.
What is the proof? Does any judge who hears
me feel himself prepared to say that the fact of a
Captain Tuckett having been in a particular regiment
is evidence of identity in this case? My
learned friend says, that if a person out of the
House may fairly draw such an inference, such an
inference may properly be drawn within its walls.
May I ask your lordships if that is the way in
which trials of this nature are to be conducted?
It is possible that your lordships sitting out of the
House, after all that has been said and written,
might draw such an inference as that which my
learned friend wishes you to make; but you are
now sitting here, as if you had never heard one
word of the case before. You are now sitting
as judges on the evidence adduced, and you are to
say whether, because a Captain Tuckett who was
formerly in the 11th Dragoons has the same
Christian name, he is to be identified with the
Captain Tuckett who fought on Wimbledon
Common. There is no evidence to show that the
Harvey Tuckett mentioned in the evidence of
Codd, is the same Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett
mentioned in this indictment. Mr. Codd does
not know him to be the same; he never saw him
either in the Poultry or at Hamilton Place. The
400whole of his evidence is this,—that he knows a
Captain Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, that he
was in the 11th Dragoons; and that he receives
for him his half-pay. There may be two Harvey
Tucketts; and since my learned friend, the Attorney-General,
has referred to your lordships’
knowledge of what may have occurred out of
doors, I would remind your lordships that in the
very regiment commanded by the noble Lord at
the bar there were two officers bearing the same
surnames certainly, and I think the same Christian
names. I submit to your lordships, that there
is no evidence whatever to prove that Captain
Harvey Tuckett mentioned in the evidence of
Mr. Codd, is the same person as the Harvey Garnett
Phipps Tuckett mentioned in this indictment;
and, however unsatisfactory a termination
it may be to the persons conducting the prosecution,
I submit to your lordships that they have
entirely failed in the proof of their identity.”
The Lord High Steward.—“I stated, when this
objection was first taken, that I thought strangers
ought to withdraw, and I am still of that opinion.
The learned counsel, however, did not object to
the argument of the Attorney-General, and therefore
I did not think it right to interrupt him;
but I wish to say, with a view to the general administration
of criminal justice, that, when similar
objections are taken in a criminal court, the counsel
for the prosecution is at the utmost called
401upon to state what portion of evidence he believes
to be sufficient to make out his case. I do
not recollect any case in which an argument has
been heard on the subject. I mention this as a
point which may be of consequence in the practice
of the courts of criminal law hereafter; and
I now move your lordships that strangers be
ordered to withdraw.”
The counsel and strangers were then ordered to
withdraw, and the Earl of Cardigan retired in the
custody of the Yeoman Usher. A protestation
of the Archbishop of Canterbury, for himself and
the rest of the Bishops, was delivered, desiring
leave to be absent when judgment was given;
leave was accordingly given. After which, the
objection taken by Sir William Follett was
taken into consideration. After the Lord High
Steward had delivered his opinion thereupon, as
an individual member of the court, and declared
it to be his judgment that the Earl of Cardigan
was entitled to be declared Not guilty, it was
moved, that the House do now proceed to give
their opinion whether the said Earl is guilty or
not guilty of the charge in the indictment; which,
being put, passed in the affirmative. Strangers
being again admitted, after proclamation made
for silence, the Lord High Steward, standing up,
by a list called every peer by his name, beginning
with the junior Baron, and asked him, “John
Lord Keane, how says your lordship; is James
402Thomas Earl of Cardigan guilty of the felony
whereof he stands indicted, or not guilty.”
Whereupon each peer, upon his name being
called, standing up in his place uncovered, and
laying his right hand upon his breast, answered,
“Not guilty, upon my honour:” the only exception
being the Duke of Cleveland, who said,
“Not guilty legally, upon my honour.” After
all the peers had given their verdict, the Lord
High Steward, standing up uncovered, declared
his opinion to the same effect. The Earl of Cardigan
being then brought to the bar, the Lord
High Steward said, “James Thomas Earl of
Cardigan, you have been indicted for a felony,
for which you have been tried by your peers, and
I have the satisfaction of informing you that
their lordships have pronounced you not guilty,
by an unanimous sentence. The number of their
lordships who gave this verdict I have not precisely
at this moment before me, or I should have
been glad to have stated it to your lordship; but
their lordships have unanimously said ‘Not
guilty.’” The Earl of Cardigan having retired,
proclamation was made for dissolving the commission;
and the white staff being delivered to
the Lord High Steward by the Gentleman Usher
of the Black Rod, his Grace stood up uncovered,
and, holding the staff in both hands, broke it in
two, and declared the commission to be dissolved.
403HOUSE OF LORDS,
February 19, 1841.
In the House of Lords, on the motion that the trial of
the Earl of Cardigan be printed,
The Earl of Eldon said, there were some matters connected
with the subject, that ought not to pass without
notice. It would be recollected that the right
reverend prelates, towards the latter part of the trial,
requested permission to withdraw, and did so. In a
portion of the address of the Attorney-General to their
Lordships, the learned gentleman made use of a certain
expression,—no doubt out of his kind regard towards
the noble Earl at the bar,—in which his feelings
seemed to have carried him a little beyond what he originally
intended. The expression to which he alluded
was this:—“That he was glad that nothing of moral
turpitude had occurred in this case.” Now, he was
perfectly prepared to say, that, in the present state of
society in this country, it was difficult to suppose that it
could go on as it now did, unless certain allowances were
made for the feelings of respectable individuals placed in
situations of great difficulty, where, perhaps, their sentiments
differed materially from the line of conduct they
were pursuing. No man was more ready to make that
allowance than he himself was; but, even admitting that,
it appeared to him that the Attorney-General, in making
the observation to which he had alluded, had gone a little
beyond what he ought to have done. Now, as the trial
had gone off on matter totally irrelevant to that point,—as
no opinion had been given by their Lordships on the
404subject,—he thought it right to notice it, lest it might be
supposed that their Lordships concurred in the sentiment
to which he had referred. He believed their Lordships
would agree with him in saying, that, in whatever situation
a gentleman might be placed when driven to have
recourse to duelling, it was not a custom that was sanctioned
either by the law or by the moral principle of the
country. Each specific case must stand between the
individual, his conscience, and his God; but he could not
conceive it possible how any man could pursue such a
course without some delinquency being attached to the
act, however the circumstances, in each particular case,
might diminish the amount of it.
The Bishop of London said, he hoped it would not go
forth to the public, that, if the right reverend prelates had
been present at the conclusion of the trial, they would
have considered themselves more than any other member
of their Lordships’ House implicated in any expression of
sentiment made use of by the Attorney-General. If he
had been present on the occasion, he would have listened
to the expression of those sentiments to which reference
had been made with deep regret; and he felt it his duty to
state, that there was not, in the matter before their Lordships,
anything, in his opinion, that called for the expression
of any such sentiments on the part of the legal officer
of the Crown, who filled the situation of public prosecutor
on that occasion, and who, it appeared to him, had gone
beyond the limits of his province in making them. He
felt himself bound to say, that he entirely concurred in
the sentiments which the noble Earl had thrown out; and
he now expressed a strong hope, that the recent unfortunate
occurrence, together with other cases which had
taken place during the last few years, would induce their
405Lordships, as the chief component part of the legislature,
to take the question into their deep and serious consideration,
and to see whether something could not be done to
put an end to that which was a shame and a scandal. It
was a custom derived from the barbarous ages: it was the
remains of that system of chivalry, which, though perhaps
it might have been of great use at the time when it prevailed,
was utterly inconsistent with the manners and customs
of the present day. The system in which it originated
had long passed by; but it had unhappily left behind
it one of its worst features in the barbarous, wicked,
and unchristian practice of duelling.
The Earl of Mountcashell was of opinion, that something
ought to be done on the subject of duelling; otherwise
their Lordships would expose themselves, after the
result of the recent trial, to the malignant aspersion, that
they identified themselves with the system. He wished to
know from her Majesty’s government, whether the act of
the 1st of Victoria was framed with intent to put an end to
duelling? If so, the trial which had occurred could only
be considered as a mockery of justice. If their Lordships
were really of opinion that duelling ought to be put an
end to, then another measure, stronger than that now in
existence, ought to be adopted. No later than yesterday
morning, he found by the public prints, a duel had been
fought by a Mr. Marsden and a Colonel Paterson, in
which one of the parties was severely wounded. He
therefore thought that this was a proper occasion for
noticing the subject. He was one of those who held the
opinion, that by proper means duelling might be put a
stop to; the more especially if measures were taken to afford
just redress for the different offences out of which duels
frequently arose. Some mode, he conceived, ought to be
406adopted, to give due satisfaction in cases of minor offence,
as well as those of a more grave and serious nature. For
instance, a man received some degree of insult, and immediately
called the aggressor out. Why did he thus call
him out?—because the law afforded him no proper satisfaction.
There was no law to prevent or punish the
offence under which the challenger felt himself aggrieved.
In this respect the law was extremely defective. Again,
if a man’s daughter was seduced, he could only sue the
seducer for the worth of her services; and who would be
satisfied with such a mockery of justice as that? So long,
therefore, as this defective state of the law remained, so
long would the system of duelling prevail. Under the
circumstances which he had stated, men really did not
know how to act. For instance, an officer in the army
received an affront: his brother officers expected that he
should go out. What was he to do? On the one side, if
he went out, he was threatened with the 1st of Victoria;
on the other, if he refused, he was obnoxious to the contempt
of his brother officers. The unfortunate man had
to choose between these two evils. He hoped and trusted
that her Majesty’s government would take this matter up,
and that he should not be told by the noble Viscount, that
he ought to introduce some measure himself. Ministers
owed it to the nation itself, which called for some measure
on the subject. The responsibility, in his opinion, lay
entirely with them; and therefore he called on them to
produce a measure that would meet the evil. If they
were not prepared, let them appoint a committee to inquire
into the subject. Let that committee investigate
the matter as closely as possible, and report on it to the
House; but let not the question be left in the state in
which it was at present; for, while it thus remained, no
407man in the country was safe,—no man was exempt from
being placed in fearful jeopardy. He should conclude by
asking whether it was the intention of her Majesty’s government
to propose any measure to parliament for the
more effectual prevention of duelling?
Lord Melbourne said, he was fully sensible of the great
importance of the subject; but, in answer to the noble
Lord’s question, he had only to state, that her Majesty’s
government did not mean to bring forward any measure of
such a nature as the noble Earl had referred to. He apprehended
that the noble Earl, on a more mature consideration
of the subject, would find that the actual state of the
law was not deficient in force, and that it was hardly
capable of being made more stringent that it was at
present.
The following is the paragraph in the morning paper,
referred to by the Earl of Mountcashell:—
“Yesterday a hostile meeting took place between Colonel
Paterson, of the East India service, and Robert Mark
Marsden, Esq. of Park Lodge, Regent’s Park. The parties
met in a field at the back of the Eyre Arms tavern,
at daybreak, and exchanged shots without effect. The
seconds then interfered, and endeavoured to reconcile the
gentlemen; but, not succeeding, the parties were again
placed on the ground. At the second fire the ball from
Mr. Marsden’s pistol took effect on the right side of the
gallant Colonel, which was severely shattered. The affair
then terminated.”
This fresh violation of the act of the 1st of Victoria,
and the notice taken of it in the House of Lords, drew,
408from the Editor of the Times journal, the following powerful
remarks:—
“The ‘practical establishment’ of the doctrine, that to
fight a duel is not to commit a felony, which certain of our
contemporaries have discovered in the acquittal of the
Earl of Cardigan, upon a point of form, by the House of
Lords, seems to be bearing early fruits. It is in vain to
expect that magistrates will do their duty in these cases,
if they get nothing but ridicule for their pains, and meet
with no co-operation from the law-officers of the Crown.
We call upon the noble Secretary of State for the Home
Department, therefore, as the chief of the police magistracy,
to take care that an inquiry be instituted without
delay into the truth or falsehood of this shameless advertisement
of felony; and if these persons, named Paterson
and Marsden, really have committed the crime imputed to
them, to put the machinery of justice in motion for their
conviction and punishment.
“No more disgraceful or demoralising spectacle can
possibly be exhibited before the eyes of a people than the
accommodation of the laws, or the submission of their
administrators, to the popular crimes of the higher classes.
Let the Attorney-General say what he will, a crime is not
divested of its inherent moral turpitude by the frequency
or the impunity with which it is committed; nor does
felony cease to be a crime when the felon is countenanced,
or even stimulated to the act, by the class-opinion of
the circle which forms ‘his world.’ Every class has in it
an aggressive self-centring principle, which aspires to ride
rough-shod over society, and chafes under the restraint of
law. It is the very object of law to bind together all
these discordant interests, by restraining the eccentricities
409of each, and compelling each to submit its own opinion to
the central intelligence, which consults for the common
good.
“What the effect upon society in general must be, of
letting it be understood, that there is a crime which must
not, or cannot, be restrained or punished, because peers
and ‘gentlemen’ think proper to commit it, while the law
declares it to be felony, we leave those to judge who know
the power of example, and the aptness of the lower orders
to learn evil from their betters. We are firmly convinced,
that no more pernicious or anarchical principle than that
of the defenders of duelling was ever broached by Chartism
or even Socialism itself. ‘Strict legal formality,’ says
a contemporary, ‘brought Lord Cardigan to the bar of
the House of Peers under an accusation of felony; and
strict legal formality has given him an unanimous, and, in
our opinion, honourable acquittal.’ All felons, we have
no doubt, think the laws under which they are brought to
justice are ‘strict legal formalities;’ and we doubt not
that they will cheerfully accept the doctrine, which renders
the law ‘Thou shalt do no murder,’ to be as mere a
‘formality,’ as that which requires every one of three
Christian names to be proved, in order to sustain an indictment.
Lord Cardigan’s acquittal is ‘honourable,’ no
doubt, in the eyes of those who would have thought it
equally honourable to be convicted, and of those alone.
“We beg to direct the attention of our readers to the
important conversation which took place upon this subject
yesterday evening in the House of Lords. Something, we
trust, will be done to remedy the evil consequences of the
late trial, ere it be yet too late.”
410February 23.
Lord Wharncliffe stated, in the House of Lords, that
it was his intention, if no Law-Lord took up the subject,
to bring in a bill to settle the point with reference to the
right of a peer to plead privilege in case of a felony; as
he happened to know that, in the case of the recent trial,
if a conviction had taken place, that point would have
been raised.
March 3.
TRIAL OF CAPTAIN DOUGLAS.
This day, the trial of Captain Douglas, second to the
Earl of Cardigan in the recent duel, took place in the New
Court, before Mr. Justice Williams and the Common
sergeant. Mr. Thesiger informed the Court that the Captain
now desired to surrender to take his trial. He then
entered the dock, accompanied by three friends; and, the
clerk of the Court having read the indictment, he pleaded
“Not guilty.” On Mr. Justice Williams inquiring whether
any one appeared for the prosecution, the clerk
answered in the negative. Mr. Hobler, who originally
had the case in hand, was in court, but had not been empowered
to instruct counsel. He said he had taken measures
to secure the attendance of the witnesses, when he
received an intimation from the police commissioners to
stay all proceedings. Mr. Justice Williams directed the
trial to proceed; and the witness Dann, the miller, his wife
and son, and also Busain the inspector of police, were
examined, and repeated the statements made by them in
the House of Lords on the trial of the Earl of Cardigan.
Sir James Anderson, who attended the duellists professionally,
declined, as before, to answer any questions, lest
411he should implicate himself. None of the Dann family
could identify Captain Douglas, and Mrs. Dann pointed
him out as the wounded man. After which,
Mr. Justice Williams, addressing the Jury, said he was
totally ignorant of the circumstances or causes by which
it had happened that nobody appeared in behalf of this
prosecution. He ought to regret it, for it had imposed
upon him the somewhat arduous task of examining the
witnesses, and also a certain degree of anxiety, to take
care, whatever might be the cause of no person appearing
to conduct the prosecution, that it should not fail for want
of every witness being called, who knew anything of the
transaction. It now, therefore, only remained for him to
communicate his judgment as to whether any case should
be submitted to their consideration. They could not close
their eyes to the fact, that a duel had been fought on
Wimbledon Common, on the day mentioned. The prisoner
was indicted for shooting at Harvey Garnett Phipps
Tuckett, and it was asserted that it should be proved that
a man bearing that name was so shot at by the prisoner
at the bar; but of this there was not one tittle of evidence.
Moreover, none of the witnesses who saw the duel had
spoken to the person of Captain Douglas. The indictment,
therefore, must fall to the ground, and the prisoner was
entitled to an acquittal.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict of “Not
guilty.”
March 12.
The Earl of Mountcashell gave notice, in the House of
Lords, that he intended, shortly after the Easter recess, to
call the attention of their Lordships to the subject of
duelling. It was his intention to move for a committee to
inquire into the causes of duelling, and to see whether
412some measure could not be adopted to put an end to so
censurable a practice. It was necessary, in the present
state of things, that some such course should be adopted;
and, if their Lordships should refuse to take any steps in
the matter, he would move for the repeal of the act of the 1st
of Victoria; for it was quite ridiculous to allow the law to
remain as it now stood. Individuals did not know whether
they might fight a duel or not; although the act of Victoria
seemed to declare that any one who did fight a duel
was liable to be tried as a felon. His Lordship said, he
knew the difficulties that attended the subject; but that
was no reason why they should not be encountered.
In the progress of the proceedings against the Earl of
Cardigan, many able articles, bearing immediately upon
the subject of this Work, appeared in the public journals.
From the “Times” of the 11th of February, a few days
previous to the trial, I copy the following address:
TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THEIR COMMITTEE.
My Lords,
One among the thousands in this country who look with
reverence and love to the august assembly of the Peers of
Great Britain, takes the liberty of addressing you on the
important subject which is appointed to come under your
judicial consideration on the 16th instant.
In regard to the immediate object of that inquiry I
shall not trouble your Lordships. Every principle of fair
play dear to an English heart, revolts at the idea of a man
being taken off his guard. If it was intended to enforce
an existing law in its rigour, or rather to put a construction
upon it which was never contemplated, public notice
ought previously to have been given of that intention.
But this was not done in the case before your Lordships.
413Equity, therefore, and mercy, will sit assessors with justice
on the trial of Lord Cardigan.
But the sentiments and principles on the subject of
duelling, avowed and acted upon in the progress of this
trial, will be of far more importance in their consequences
than the issue of the trial itself. An opportunity,
in fact, is about to be afforded your Lordships of adding
yet another benefit to the many which England has already
experienced at your hands—an opportunity of
stamping your past exertions in the cause of truth, religion,
and civilisation, with the seals of sincerity and consistency:
nay, words still stronger befit the occasion; and
I fear not to say, that your Lordships stand at this moment
in a situation of great responsibility, in which the
eyes of the nation are fixed upon you, anxiously expecting
that you will embrace this favourable occasion to interpose
the shield of your influence between society and that systematic
violation of its laws which has so long and so unhappily
prevailed amongst us. It is on the question,
therefore, of duelling, that I would now respectfully engage
your Lordships’ attention.
Every one will admit the absurdity of the bathos from
the lance to the pistol,—from the grave and noble auto da
fe which the combat of the chivalrous ages exhibited in
its solemn appeal to God, as the witness and the judge of
right and wrong, to the modern system, resorted to on the
most trivial as well as the most important occasions, and
as striking a proof of the degenerate faithlessness of the
present, as the ancient custom, of which it is the distorted
image, is of the simple faith and piety of the
olden time.
The argument for the defence of duelling, as at present
constituted, is short, simple, and intelligible. The ‘vantage-ground
414of principle is conceded at once; but the
world, it is contended, could not go on without it. There
are points where human legislation must stop, where unwritten
must take the place of written laws; society cannot
be kept in check except by fear of personal consequences
attendant on the violation of those unwritten laws:
the system of duelling affords that check; expediency,
therefore, requires the toleration of duelling.
Now, were the edifice of society founded on the shifting
and variable sands of human folly and weakness, such
reasoning might pass current: but if, as we believe and
know, its foundations are laid deep below the waves of
time and change, on the eternal and immutable rock of
divine strength and wisdom, it becomes our duty to test
that reasoning by the revealed will of God; and if we find
it ring false (as even its advocates confess it does), then,
in the confidence that the expediency consists in the resolution
of human wisdom and will into the wisdom and
will of God, boldly to repudiate the perversion of the
doctrine usually promulgated under its name, in this as
well as in every other instance, as alike sinful and cowardly
in its principle, short-sighted in its views, and destructive
in its operation. The Bible is the only standard of
right and wrong; and we read there, “Thou shalt not do
evil that good may come of it.” The defence, therefore,
of duelling on the ground of expediency falls to the
ground; and no other defence is set up for it.
But the truth is, that society, so far from courting or
needing the support of duelling, abhors and disowns a
system which strikes at the very foundation of social
order. Duelling is the mere foster-child of public opinion—the
public opinion, moreover, not of the nation at large,
but of a class, on whose sentiments and practices any
415opinion expressed by your Lordships, its brightest ornaments,
must necessarily possess incalculable influence. It
is this influence which we implore you to exercise on the
present occasion.
It is not in the indulgence of malice or revenge that the
essential iniquity of duelling consists. Many a man has
fought a duel with perfect innocence as regards those
points. Few, I believe, take their stations in the field
with the deliberate intention of “killing, maiming, or
doing some grievous bodily injury” to their antagonist,
as imputed to the noble Earl now summoned to your
Lordships’ bar for trial. Far from it. Few but would
refuse a challenge, were it not for the disgrace with which
such a refusal stamps the character. It has been often
and truly said, that it requires more courage to refuse
than to accept a challenge. It requires much for a single
man to do so; but for the husband and the father, whose
prospects for life may be blasted, and his wife and children
reduced to beggary and wretchedness, in consequence
of his refusal, the trial must be one of bitterness indeed.
It is not, I repeat, in malice or revenge that the evil of
the system lies. Nor need I insist upon the violation of
the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” No one will
dispute, at least no man who ever saw his antagonist fall
in a duel, but will remember the blow with which conscience
knocked at his heart in that moment of anguish,—the
distinctness with which for days and years afterwards
he heard the still calm voice of God whispering in the
silence of his heart’s wilderness, “Where is thy brother
Abel?” The evil lies deeper still. It consists in a total
oblivion of that vital principle, of natural religion in the
first instance, but far more emphatically so of Christianity,—a
principle which every man who fights a duel, challenger
416or challenged, consciously or unconsciously violates,—a
principle written in letters of light in the book of
inspiration, in the following heart-stirring words, “Ye
are not your OWN, for ye are bought with a price; wherefore
glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are
God’s.” Life, then, is not a man’s own property to peril
at his pleasure, any more than it is his own to dismiss by
suicide; and, till this principle be recognised, not as
involved in the mere question of duelling, but in its full
uncompromising extent, a man can never be thoroughly
depended upon in the full confidence of his proving, under
all circumstances, and without mental reservation, loyal
to his Sovereign, faithful to his God, and true to his
country.
This, my Lords, is an age of recurrence to first principles,
a period unexampled in the annals of the world.
The shackles of ages are falling off, and the human intellect
is rising up, unconscious of its strength, and likely,
in pure ignorance how to restrain and economize that
strength, to rend asunder the bones, the muscles, the
ligaments which are alike its prison, and the necessary
instruments of its energy and activity; in other words, to
burst through and destroy the whole framework of society.
To preserve that framework, to discipline that awakening
strength, and to direct it to those high and noble purposes,
which, from the elevation on which we now stand, we may
see opening out before us in long vistas, as it were, of
untrodden enterprise in the map of God’s providence,
education must be resorted to; not that spurious education
which draws its theory and its practice alike from
the dust it studiously looks down upon, whose wisdom is
of the earth, earthy—but that which God intended when
he distinguished man from the beasts that perish, by
417creating him with his face erect to heaven, in the image of
his Maker. If society is to be preserved, it must be Christianized.
Your Lordships have acknowledged this great
truth by your exertions to preserve the Christian principle
in education. England owes you much for all you have
done, for all you are still doing in this great cause. But
it would be mockery to hold forth the decalogue with one
hand, and with the other a charter of legitimation to that
spurious offspring of human vice and folly, which, involving
as it does a direct transgression not of one only,
but of almost every law in the decalogue, virtually annuls
it. And this charter your Lordships sign—the good that
you have done your inconsistency may undo—if in the
remotest degree you indirectly sanction the system in
question.
The expediency of enacting prohibitory laws against
duelling, such as exist in some foreign countries, must
necessarily be left to the wisdom of the united Houses to
determine; it would probably be decided in the negative,
and perhaps rightly so. But a far more efficient
remedy is in your Lordships’ own hands, as the highest
court of honour in the kingdom,—the capital of the column
of English nobility,—the sun, as it were, whose lustre and
the spots that obscure its disk are alike reflected by that
class of society in which the evil complained of has hitherto
chiefly prevailed. Your influence on the “public opinion”
of this class is immense. Let your Lordships simply
declare duelling to be disgraceful, and it becomes so.
We, therefore,—for I speak but as one of a vast body
who hold that Christianity and true Conservatism are
synonymous,—we, who in these days of storm and tempest
look to your Lordships as the sheet-anchor on which
the preservation of the state depends,—we who, respecting
418your wisdom, and honouring your manly daring in the
vindication and assertion of truth and duty, deeply believe,
however, and know with unalterable conviction,
that it is God’s blessing, and His only, which has hitherto
maintained, or can hereafter maintain, you in your posts
and in your usefulness; and who watch over you therefore
with the jealousy of love, lest in aught, through inadvertence,
you come short of your high and holy vocation. We
call upon your Lordships, therefore, in the name of God
and man, as you would be consistent with yourselves, as
you hope God’s blessing to rest on your labours for your
country’s good, to accompany the verdict you pronounce
on the solemn occasion about to engage your attention
with the fearless unqualified expression of your united abhorrence
of the unhallowed system of duelling.
I have the honour, &c.
Lælius.
The following article contains a very graphic account of
a duel, from the origin down to the acquittal of the
prisoner:—
THE LAW RESPECTING DUELLING.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE.
Sir,
Your correspondent, whose communication on the
subject of duelling you printed on Friday, must have
adopted the principle which he lays down from an article
in Knight’s Quarterly Magazine, a periodical which was
born and died some twenty years ago; but which, during
its brief existence, could boast some contributors who have
since risen to eminence; among others, et facile princeps,
419the Right Honourable Thomas Macaulay, then at Cambridge—not,
however, that I have the slightest reason to
believe the paper to which I refer to be his. As the work
is now scarce, I have made a copy of the article, which is
at your service.
I am, &c.
T.
Suppose a high-spirited, but good-natured, young man
receives an insult. It is possible that his first, or, at least,
his second impulse, may be to pass it over, and content
himself with despising the brute who offered it. The
brute, however, mistaking love of peace for fear of war,
and glad of an opportunity of oppressing safely, repeats
the aggression; the bystanders, who, to a young man, are
the representatives of all mankind, past, present, and to
come, begin to show by their looks that they had not
expected so much philosophy. Our hero gives or sends a
challenge; a “meeting takes place,”—the brute is shot
dead, and nobody regrets him, not even his creditors, for
they had lost all hopes.
But, in the mean time, what is the situation of the
young man and the seconds? Divinity and Law have
long ago settled the question—they are murderers. A
warrant is issued for their apprehension; they possess,
however, good friends who have spare attics, and the warrant
cannot reach them. But their mothers, sisters,
mistresses, and maiden aunts, who read in the papers that
the coroner’s inquest has returned a verdict of “Wilful
murder against John Smith, Charles Jones, and William
Brown,” are in despair. The horrible visions of black
caps, chains, and gibbets, flit before their eyes; and, in
short, whole families are thrown into unaffected and very
420severe affliction. In the midst of all this suffering the
assizes approach, and the accused surrender themselves for
trial. The “unfortunate gentlemen” (to use the phraseology
of the newspapers) appear at the bar, “dressed in
genteel mourning, and deeply affected with their awful
situation.” The counsel for the Crown details the case,
lays down the law, “under the authority of his Lordship,”
and then concludes by telling the jury, that, “if the
facts are as he has stated them, he cannot see how they
will avoid pronouncing the verdict of guilty; but he fervently
hopes that something may arise to relieve them
from so painful a duty.” In the examination of the evidence
everybody is aware that the Judge, the counsel on
both sides, and the witnesses, are straining all their ingenuity
to prevent a verdict against the prisoners; and
everybody sympathises with their endeavours. His Lordship,
in his charge to the jury, explains to them again
that every man killed in a duel is murdered; but he at the
same time shows that there are some technical defects in
the evidence, which he places before them in a strong
light. The jury “turn round for a few minutes,” and find
a verdict of “Not guilty.” Upon this there is considerable
applause manifested among the auditory, “which
meets with the marked reprehension of his Lordship,” who
threatens to commit the offenders. The court is now
cleared, all the world is pleased to find that poor Smith
is acquitted, agrees that duels are horrid things, and
hopes that, as they become so common, the Judge will
direct the very next man who fights one to be hanged.
In this little sketch, extravagant as it would appear to
any rational being who had never heard of the practice of
duelling, we have tried not to “o’erstep the modesty of
nature.” How we have succeeded, our readers must determine;
421but if we have erred we shall at least have no
excuse; for, judging from what has been done by others,
it should seem impossible either to preach, legislate, or
write on the subject without being betrayed into some
absurdity.
To begin with the preachers. Does it not, we ask,
perplex all our ideas of morality to call the act of killing
a man who has fired at me, and who has agreed to let me
fire at him, a murder? Has it anything in common with
stealing to his bed at the dead of night, and stabbing him
in his sleep? Try to shake hands with one murderer (if
he must be so called), and then with the other; do you
not feel a difference? Can you doubt for a moment which
man you would rather be, whose feelings you would rather
have, whose remorse you would rather bear?
To legislators we have more to say. In the first place,
they have provided no practical remedy for the wrongs
which are now attempted to be redressed, or at least
checked, by duels. If a fellow picks my pocket of an old
handkerchief, I have him transported without much trouble;
but if I am held up to the scorn and ridicule of my
friends, provided the artist be skilful in his profession,
provided he can
“Spargere voces
Ambiguas,”
and play off “all the cruel language of the eye,” I am,
even in theory, without redress. Nay, he may venture
to go much further, if he have legal knowledge enough
to remember all the nice distinctions which have been
made on the subject. For instance, he must not say I am
a highwayman, but may affirm with impunity that I am
worse than a highwayman; and he may load me with the
422epithets of “scoundrel, rascal, villain, knave, miscreant,
liar, and fool,”[9] as long as he pleases; unless I can show
that some actual loss in money, or money’s worth, has
accrued to me from his defamation. So that if my character
stands so high, or his character so low, that nobody
believes him, he goes unpunished. But we will suppose
his rage to be so excessive as not to be confined within
these ample bounds—we will suppose that after carefully
noting down the words in my pocket-book, and calling
upon the bystanders to con them over often enough to fix
them firmly in their memory until the next assizes, I go to
my attorney, and he enters an action against the slanderer.
In due time, I obtain a sight of the pleadings, and find
that I hold myself up as a person of the highest character,
and impute the ill-conduct of the defendant to his great
envy of “my happy state and condition.” Then the
slanderous words are set out, as the lawyers call it, with
so much verbiage, that they appear quite ludicrous even
to myself. At length we come into court. My counsel
affect great gravity, which does not impose on a single
individual; states my case to the jury, the counsel for the
defence laughing judiciously at every part of his address
which is likely to produce any effect. The jury, who do
not remember that an advocate may be paid for laughing
as well as for talking, are, (unconsciously, perhaps,) more
influenced by the smiling face than the oration. The
witnesses are next examined, and another opportunity is
offered for covering the whole transaction with ridicule.
It is now the turn of my opponent’s counsel to speak.
He represents the affair as a foolish quarrel which happened
a long time ago; wonders that neighbours should
come to tear themselves to pieces in a court of law;
423takes hold of anything ludicrous in the defamatory expressions,
makes the audience laugh, and sits down.
Now all this, on whichever side the verdict may be given,
is a real triumph to the aggressor; the public feeling is
too often with him: there is nothing natural or apposite
in the tribunal. The delay, the machinery, the expenses,
and the formality of the proceedings, cast an air of the
mock-heroic over the whole matter, very little tending to
satisfy the mind of the injured party. The offence, too,
was addressed to the feelings, and the recompense is one
to be pocketed.
Thus it is clear that the law has provided no efficient
remedy, and perhaps can provide none, for a very large
class of severe injuries. But this is not all; the injured
party is often willing, as far as his own private feelings
are concerned, to forego any redress, and bear the aggression
as he may. But society, which has made one law to
punish the duellist as a murderer, has, at the same time,
by another, imposed upon him the necessity of fighting.
This latter law, it is true, does not frown its terrors from
columns of black letter, nor is it supported by volumes of
cases and commentaries; but we rather think that the want
of these auxiliaries is but too well compensated by the
swiftness and certainty of its administration. No waiting
until the assizes or sessions—no flaws in the indictment—no
cajoling the jury. Whoever defies public opinion is convicted
on view, and punished immediately on conviction.
Who, then, shall say that he does not suffer by law? and
that, in fact, the two laws, one of which commands, and
the other prohibits duelling, are both the offspring of
society? Is it, or can it be, of the least importance to the
sufferer by this tyranny, that the framers of one of these
enactments call the other law wicked and absurd? It may
424be absurd; the duellist may feel and think it to be so, but
is he therefore to endure its punishment? Does he not act
naturally, and we may even add rationally, in obeying the
power which can best carry its will into execution? He
knows that the penalty inflicted by the law of public
opinion is certain; he knows also that it is the most galling
which a man of high spirit and quick feelings can endure.
On the other hand, he can be sure, even reasoning à priori,
that two opposing laws cannot both exist in full vigour
at one and the same time. But he has better evidence;
he finds by his daily experience that the statute-book is
almost a dead letter when it comes in contact with public
opinion. Legislators, too, often forget that laws will not
administer themselves. If a code of self-executing statutes
could be framed, public feeling might for a time be disregarded;
or if some ingenious mechanic could construct
a steam-engine which, by different movements, should perform
the work of judge and jury, there would then be
some chance that iron laws might be enforced. But while
the old plan of manual labour is pursued—while judges
and juries, and witnesses and counsel, are human beings,
and live in society, it will be in vain to expect from them
the enforcement of edicts which run counter to all their
sympathies. Let it not be supposed that we think harshly
of legislators; we do not; but they have to do only with
abstractions. It is easy to fulminate the terrors of the
law against A, B, C, or any or all of the letters in the
alphabet; but it is a very different thing to execute those
threats upon real men of flesh and blood. A, B, and C,
have no eyes; A, B, and C, have no hands, organs, senses,
affections, passions. They are not fed with the same food,
hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the
425same winter and summer as men are. “If you prick
them, they do not bleed; if you tickle them, they do not
laugh; if you poison them, they do not die; and if you
wrong them, they cannot revenge.” Poor A, B, and C,
have neither mothers, mistresses, aunts nor sisters; they
do not “appear at the bar in genteel mourning;” they
are not “unfortunate gentlemen.” In short, they can
awake no sympathies; and there is no possible reason why
the law should not take its course in the cases of such
wicked and daring offenders, except that these abstractions
cannot be caught.
With respect to one class of the community, officers in
the army, the case is even more glaringly absurd and unjust;
for, with regard to them, the laws of the land are
actually at variance among themselves. By the Mutiny
Act, the King has an “unlimited power to create crimes,
and annex to them any punishment not extending to life
or limb.”[10] If, then, he shall be found to have exercised
the power in the punishment of officers for not fighting
duels our position will be fully proved.[11]
The intelligent reader must have been, at some time,
struck with the mass of contradictions which, in one shape
or other, has been offered to the world on the subject of
duels; divines and law-givers crying murder; commentators[12]
extolling the justice of laws which cannot be executed;
historians[13] deducing effects which they call good, from
causes which they call absurd; and lastly, the world at
large, admitting all that can be said against duels, sometimes
426demanding sanguinary punishments, which they
would shrink from seeing executed, and sometimes allowing
that although they are shocking things, yet they are
necessary “in a certain rank of life.”
While the public mind is in such a chaos, it is almost
hopeless to expect any speedy amelioration, either in the
law, or in popular opinion. Yet the period of improvement
may not be so infinitely distant as at first sight we
should be led to suppose.
The great principle of legislation, that the severity of
punishment ought not to be so great as to shock the general
feeling, is gradually toiling its way from the works
of theorists (as they are called), into the heads of practical
men, and in the course of a few ages these latter gentlemen
may also be taught, that to visit with the same penalty
the aggressor and his antagonist, whom he has forced into
a duel, is not quite consistent with sound and enlightened
maxims of justice; and, what will probably have more
weight, they may discover that it is a species of legislation
which cannot be carried into effect. In equally reasonable
time it may be found, that what cannot be entirely abolished
may be regulated. Suppose that after a duel was
fought, the law condescended to inquire into the merits of
the dispute, and punish him who had provoked the outrage;
is it not probable that fear of legal punishment, superadded
to the danger of being shot, would prevent some
of those aggressions from which duels arise? Even the
master of that most valuable accomplishment, the power
of snuffing a candle with a pistol-bullet, might shrink
from such an investigation as this, which would naturally
be followed up with a severe penalty. Public feeling
would offer no obstacle. The wretch who wantonly, or
perhaps maliciously, puts a fellow-creature under the necessity
427of either suffering mental pain and degradation,
or exposing his life to extreme danger, deserves no sympathy,
and would receive none.
Nor ought the second, who assisted such a man, wholly
to escape. To a certain degree he would be an object of
public displeasure, and might therefore be visited with a
punishment bearing some proportion to that of his principal.
Where blame fairly attaches to both parties, then,
let both be punished; but let the penalty have relation to
the common feelings of mankind. It is impossible to
treat the survivor in such a duel as a murderer, but he
ought not therefore entirely to escape. The law as it
now stands resembles Thor in Jutenheim; his hammer
was able to beat down rocks, but he struck at shadows,
and his real enemies laughed at his blows.
Much good would result from making it the duty of the
coroner to hold an inquest after every duel, whether the
consequences had been fatal or not. When a pistol is
discharged, accident alone determines what shall be the
consequence. The guilt of the shooter is just the same,
whether the ball take effect or not. It is true the parties
might, according to the law as it now exists, be prosecuted,
and since Lord Ellenborough’s Act they are liable
to be capitally convicted; but it has not been made the
particular duty of any public officer to see the law put
into execution, and consequently nothing is done. Since,
however, a great, and perhaps the greatest part of the
efficacy of punishment results from the certainty of its
infliction, it is evident that every temptation to violate the
law, from the hope that accident will be favourable, ought
to be cut off.
In the present state of society, the total abolition of
duels cannot, as experience abundantly shows, be effected.
428A speedy, certain, and reputable method of punishing insults
must first be discovered and established. At present,
with respect to those injuries, society is in a state of
nature. The right of private war has only been surrendered,
because the individual is better protected by the
arm of the law than by his own strength. Whenever there
shall be instituted a supreme court, to act as arbiter
among nations, public war will, for the same reason,
fall into disuse, or will only be made for the purpose of
chastising a refractory member of this great community,
just as the police officers may be said to carry on war
against the criminals whom they apprehend. But as it
would be preposterous to expect a nation to sit down
quietly under its wrongs until such a court is appointed,
so it is equally unreasonable to demand that private men
should always refrain from redressing, by their own means,
those grievances for which the law offers no remedy. By
the plan which we have proposed the balance of pain
would be fearfully against the aggressor; and that noxious
animal, the bully, must soon become extinct. At
present he stands on equal ground with his antagonist;
or rather, from having made a just estimate of the worthlessness
of his own life, he is aware that the stakes are in
his favour. Add to this, he generally has no better occupation
for his time than to become very expert at his weapons.
In England, these creatures are happily become rare;
but in Ireland, notwithstanding its boasted exemption from
venomous animals, in France, in the United States, and in
our own colonies, the breed still flourishes—at once the
terror and the disgrace of civilized society.
LONDON: PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY, BANGOR HOUSE, SHOE LANE.
- Transcriber’s Notes:
- Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
- Typographical errors were silently corrected.
- Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant
form was found in this book.
