The History of Duelling. Vol. 2 (of 2)

by J. G. Millingen

BETWEEN MAJOR HILLAS AND MR. THOMAS FENTON.

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 hastened 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, who 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.

BETWEEN P. DILLON, ESQ., AND B. KANE, ESQ.
Dublin, Feb. 21, 1816.

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.

BETWEEN MR. ALLEY AND MR. ADOLPHUS.
December 2, 1816.

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.

BETWEEN MAJOR LOCKYER AND MR. SUTTON COCHRANE.
Cowes, December 12, 1817.

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 the 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.

BETWEEN MR. THEODORE O’CALLAGHAN AND LIEUTENANT BAILEY.
Bow Street, January 13, 1818.

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 he 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 supported 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 sprung 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, in 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 Lane, 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 the 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 hitherto 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 would 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 about 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 complied 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.

BETWEEN LIEUT. CARTWRIGHT AND LIEUT. MAXWELL.
March, 1818.

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.

BETWEEN VISCOUNT BELGRAVE AND SIR J. G. EGERTON.
October 17, 1818.

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.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN JOHNSTON, OF THE 64TH REGIMENT AND BENJAMIN T. BROWNE, SURGEON OF THE ERIE, AMERICAN SLOOP OF WAR.
March, 1819.

On the 23rd of March, while Captain Johnston was on the main-guard duty at Gibraltar, a report was 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 having 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 having 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 having 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 paces, 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.

BETWEEN MR. UNIACKE AND MR. BOWIE.
August 1, 1819.

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.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN PELLEW, OF THE LIFE GUARDS, AND LIEUTENANT WALSH.
October 6, 1819.

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 Park; 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.

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.

BETWEEN T. HUNGERFORD, ESQ. AND R. TRAVERS, ESQ.
August 13, 1820.

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.

BETWEEN MR. R. STUART AND MR. TOWNSEND DADE.
August 20, 1820.

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.

BETWEEN MR. FULLIOT AND MR. BURROWES.
September 17, 1820.

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.

BETWEEN MR. JOHN SCOTT AND MR. CHRISTIE.
February 16, 1821.

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. The 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 an 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 the 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. After 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 defence.’” 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 jury 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. Pettigrew, 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 of 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.”

BETWEEN VISCOUNT PETERSHAM AND THOMAS WEBSTER WEDDERBURNE, ESQ.
April 21, 1821.

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 what 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 of 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 explanations 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.”

“To Lord Foley.

“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.”

“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.

BETWEEN M. MANUEL AND M. BEAUMONT.
April 10, 1821.

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, received 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 M. 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.

BETWEEN MR. WILLIAM BRITTLEBANK AND MR. CUDDIE.
May 22, 1821.

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 friend 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 one 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 announced, 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 the 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 after 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 absence 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.

BETWEEN SIR ALEXANDER BOSWELL, BART., OF AUCHINLECK, AND MR. STUART, OF DUNCARN.
March 26, 1822.

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 article 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 facts:—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 Boswell 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. Witness 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 the 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 should 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 been 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 which 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 there 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.

BETWEEN THE DUKE OF BEDFORD AND THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
May 2, 1822.

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 the 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, such 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.

BETWEEN M. BENJAMIN CONSTANT AND M. FORBIN DES ISSARTS.
June 6, 1822.

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.

BETWEEN M. PINAC AND AN ENGLISHMAN.
July, 1822.

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 July:—“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.”

BETWEEN GENERAL PEPE AND GENERAL CARASCOSA.
February, 1823.

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 charging 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 February, 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.

BETWEEN COLONEL GRAVES AND CAPTAIN LACY.
May, 1823.

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 Colonel 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.”

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. BATTIER.
May 6, 1824.

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, Secretary 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 from 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.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN GOURLAY AND MR. WESTALL.
October 30, 1824.

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. The 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.

BETWEEN MR. LAMBTON, AFTERWARDS EARL OF DURHAM, AND MR. BEAUMONT.
July 1, 1826.

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 have. 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 the 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.”

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS DE LIVRON AND M. DU TRONE.
November 18, 1826.

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.

BETWEEN MR. BRIC AND MR. HAYES.
December 26, 1826.

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 that 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 Tralee. 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.

BETWEEN M. GOULARD AND M. CAIRE.
February 21, 1827.

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.

BETWEEN THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON AND THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA.
March 21, 1829.

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, determined 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 your 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.”

(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 lordship 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 acknowledgments 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 so 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 have 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 Lord 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.”

(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 between 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.”

(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 which 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:—

MEMORANDUM.

“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 and 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 in 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.”

BETWEEN CAPT. HELSHAM AND LIEUT. CROWTHER.
April 1, 1829.

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. On 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 and 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 this 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 to 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 guilty 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.”

BETWEEN MR. LAMBRECHT AND MR. CLAYTON.
January 8, 1830.

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, Mr. 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, and 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 stated 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, and 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 that 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 abetting 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.”

BETWEEN CAPTAIN SMITH AND STANDISH O’GRADY, ESQ.
March 17, 1830.

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. North 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 struck 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. O’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.

BETWEEN DR. SMITH AND DR. JEFFRIES.
August, 1830.

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 proved 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.

BETWEEN GENERAL SEBASTIANI AND GENERAL LAMARQUE.
August 1, 1831.

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 of 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.

BETWEEN MAJOR-GENERAL MOORE AND MR. STAPYLTON.
February 13, 1832.

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 Union 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, the 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.

BETWEEN GENERAL JACQUEMINOT AND M. BELMONTE.
March 23, 1832.

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 left 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.

BETWEEN M. COSTE AND M. BÉNOIT.
September, 1832.

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 office 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 challengers 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 in 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.”

BETWEEN SIR JOHN JEFFCOTT AND DR. HENNIS.
May 10, 1833.

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; and 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 not 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 good-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 me 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 ground, 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 he 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 whether 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.”

BETWEEN M. CHARLES LEON, NATURAL SON OF NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE, AND CAPTAIN DE HESSE.
August 1833.

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. An 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.

BETWEEN THE DUKE DE ROVIGO AND COUNT DE LANGLE.
February 14, 1835.

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.

BETWEEN MR. ST. JOHN AND COUNT CATRAFFIANA.
April 25, 1835.

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 left 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.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN WHITE AND COLONEL BELLAMY.
November 21, 1835.

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 received 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.

BETWEEN BRIGADIER-GENERAL EVANS AND CAPTAIN DICKSON.
April 8, 1836.

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 being 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.”

BETWEEN M. ARMAND CARREL AND M. ÉMILE DE GIRARDIN.
July, 1836.

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 prosecution 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.”

BETWEEN THE HONOURABLE GRANTLEY BERKELEY AND WILLIAM MAGINN, LL.D.
August 4, 1836.

In consequence of an assault committed by the Honourable Grantley Fitzhardinge Berkeley, M.P. on Mr. James Fraser, the publisher of the magazine 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.

BETWEEN MR. HARRING AND A POLISH OFFICER.
May 11, 1837.

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 for Boulogne; the duel having been expressly fought at the time appointed, to allow the escape of the survivor to the Continent.

BETWEEN MR. ANDERSON AND MR. JONES.
August 1837.

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. Jones’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.

BETWEEN MR. CILLEY AND MR. GRAVES.
November 1837.

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; the 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.”

BETWEEN SIR JOHN MILLEY DOYLE AND DR. LOVELL.
March 1838.

A hostile meeting took place near Lisbon between Major-General Sir John Milley Doyle and Dr. 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.

BETWEEN MR. PIGOT AND MR. CARROLL.
April 27, 1838.

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 his 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.

BETWEEN MR. RUSHOUT AND MR. BORTHWICK.
May 8, 1838.

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.

BETWEEN M. CALMEL AND M. LUARD.
May 1838.

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 reversals of such decisions by the Court of Cassation, returned a verdict of acquittal against all the parties.

BETWEEN LORD CASTLEREAGH AND M. GERARD DE MELCY.
June 16, 1838.

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 was 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.

BETWEEN MR. MIRFIN AND MR. ELIOT.
August 22, 1838.

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 some 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 ground. 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, to 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 minutes’ 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 had 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 attended 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.

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. GRATTAN.
January 13, 1839.

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 addressed 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 to 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.

BETWEEN LORD POWERSCOURT AND MR. ROEBUCK.
February 28, 1839.

A hostile meeting took place this day at Coombe Wood, between Lord Powerscourt and Mr. Roebuck; the former attended by the Honourable H. 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.

BETWEEN LORD GEORGE LOFTUS AND LORD HARLEY.
December 10, 1839.

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 George’s second retracted, in his name, the expressions that gave the offence.

BETWEEN LORD WILLIAM PAGET AND MR. FISKE.
December 20, 1839.

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.

BETWEEN MR. WYNN AND MR. BROWN, IN A STAGE-COACH.
May 17, 1840.

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, Illinois. 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.

BETWEEN M. THROUET AND M. PAULIN PRUÉ.
June, 1840.

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 to 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.

BETWEEN MR. ANTONIO GARBONIA AND MR. KECHOFF.
July 4, 1840.

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.

BETWEEN THE EARL OF CARDIGAN AND CAPTAIN HARVEY GARNETT PHIPPS TUCKETT.
September 12, 1840.

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, of 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 magistrates 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 satisfaction, 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”

September 28.

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.

October 14.

Lieutenant Tuckett being sufficiently recovered to appear before the magistrates of the Wandsworth Court, 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.

October 21.

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.

February 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 which, 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 or 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 has 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 inflicted; 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 ensued 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 other 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 if 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 shall, 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, with 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 of 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 these 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, will 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 is 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, sec. 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 shoes.’ 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 the 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 murder? 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 meeting, 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 show, 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 to 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 stands 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 no 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, the 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 Cardigan 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, New 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 side 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 Harvey 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 taken 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 the 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 at 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 to 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 of 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 whole 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 upon 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 Thomas 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.

HOUSE 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 subject,—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 Lordships, 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 adopted, 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 man 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, from 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 of 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.”

February 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 he 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 some 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. Equity, 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 of 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 opinion 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 or 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 creating 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 your 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, the 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 severe 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; but 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 epithets 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; takes 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 be 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 same 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 demanding 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 of 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. A 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.

THE END.

---

LONDON: PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY, BANGOR HOUSE, SHOE LANE.

FOOTNOTES

---

[1]. See Spelman’s Glossary ad vocem “Campus.”

[2]. The following is his memorable letter written to Lord Viscount Villiers in the year 1616:—

“My very good Lord,—Yesterday was a day of great good for his Majesty’s service, and the peace of this kingdom concerning duels, by occasion of d’Arcey’s case. I spake big, and publishing his Majesty’s strait charge to me, said, it had struck me blind, as in point of duels, cartels, &c., I should not know a coronet from a hatband. I was bold also to declare how excellently his Majesty had expressed to me a contemplation of his concerning duels; that is, that when he came forth and saw himself princely attended with goodly noblesse and gentlemen, he entered into the thought, that none of their lives were in certainty, not for twenty-four hours, from the duel; for it was but an heat or a mistaking, and then a lie, and then a challenge, and then life; saying, that he did not marvel seeing Xerxes shed tears to think not one of his great army should be alive in a hundred years. His Majesty was touched with compassion to think that not one of his attendants but might be dead within twenty-four hours by the duel. This I write, because his Majesty may be wary what he saith to me (in things of this sort), I being so apt to play the blab. In this also, I forgot not to prepare the judges, and wish them to protest, and as it were to denounce, that in all cases of duel capital before them, they will use equal severity towards the ‘insolent’ murder by the duel, and the ‘insidious’ murder; and that they will extirpate that difference out of the opinion of men, which they did excellently well.”

[3]. Charles Moore.

[4]. Whitelocke’s Memorials.

[5]. William, first Duke of Devonshire.

[6]. The officious interference of the Speaker on this occasion was evidently offensive to the professional character of Dr. Brocklesby and Mr. Graves; and Mr. Wilkes, by the delicacy of his behaviour, conveyed a severe censure on his conduct and that of the House.

[7]. On discovering his wound, and in allusion to a report then prevalent as to the badness of the ammunition supplied to the army, it is said that Fox jocosely exclaimed, “Egad! Adam, it would have been all over with me, if you had not been charged with Government powder!”

[8]. See pp. [327], [349].

[9]. Christian’s Blackstone, vol. iii. p. 125.

[10]. Blackstone.

[11]. See the verdict of a court-martial, holden 1818, on charges preferred against Lieutenant-Colonel Abernethie, of the Marines, for neglecting to demand the “honourable adjustment” of a dispute, and the subsequent decision of the Prince Regent on that occasion.

[12]. Blackstone.

[13]. Robertson.

• 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.