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

by J. G. Millingen

BETWEEN RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN AND MR. MATTHEWS.

When Mr. Sheridan became the avowed suitor of Miss Linley, the celebrated vocal performer, her father, the late composer, did not at first encourage his suit, and he had many rivals to overcome in his attempts to gain the lady’s affections. His perseverance, however, increased with the difficulties that presented themselves; and his courage and resolution in vindicating Miss Linley’s reputation from a calumnious report, which had been basely thrown out against her, obtained for him the fair prize for which he twice exposed his life.

Mr. Matthews, a gentleman, then well known in the fashionable circles at Bath, had caused a paragraph to be inserted in a public paper at that place, which tended to prejudice the character of this young lady, and Mr. Sheridan immediately applied for redress to the publisher, who gave up the writer’s name.

Mr. Matthews had, in the mean time, set out for London, and was closely followed by Mr. Sheridan. They met, and fought a duel with swords, at a tavern in Henrietta-street, Covent-garden. Mr. Sheridan’s second on the occasion was his brother, Charles Francis, afterwards Secretary at War in Ireland.

Great courage and skill were displayed on both sides; but Mr. Sheridan having succeeded in disarming his adversary, compelled him to sign a formal retractation of the paragraph which had been published.

Sheridan instantly returned to Bath; and thinking, very properly, that as the insult had been publicly given, the apology should have equal notoriety, caused it to be inserted in the same paper. Mr. Matthews soon heard of the circumstance; and irritated at his defeat, as well as at the use which his antagonist had made of his apology, determined to call upon Mr. Sheridan for satisfaction. A message was accordingly sent, and a meeting agreed upon.

Mr. Sheridan would have been fully justified, according to the most delicate punctilios of honour, in declining the call; but he silenced all the objections that were started by his friends, and the parties met on Kingsdown.

The victory was desperately contested, and after a discharge of pistols, they fought with swords. They were both wounded, and closing with each other, fell on the ground, where they continued to fight until they were separated. They received several cuts and contusions in this arduous struggle for life and honour, and a part of Matthews’s sword was actually broken off in Sheridan’s ear.

Miss Linley did not suffer the prowess of her champion to remain long unrewarded, and accompanied him on a matrimonial trip to the Continent. The ceremony was again performed on their return to England, with the consent of the lady’s parents.

BETWEEN LORD TOWNSHEND AND THE EARL OF BELLAMONT,
February 2, 1773.

This afternoon, the long-subsisting difference between Lord Townshend and the Earl of Bellamont was finally decided in Marylebone Fields, when the latter received a ball in the right side of his belly, near the groin.

They were armed with small swords, and a case of pistols; but it was agreed to use the latter first. Lord Townshend fired first, which gave the unfortunate wound, and Lord Bellamont discharged his pistol immediately after, without effect. The seconds were the Hon. Mr. Dillon for Lord Bellamont, and Lord Ligonier for Lord Townshend.

Lord Bellamont was immediately taken up and put into a chaise; but from the agony arising from his wound, he could not bear the motion. A chair was, therefore, immediately sent for to carry him to his lodging, where, on his arrival, he desired to be laid on his back. Mr. Bromfield and other surgeons were immediately called in, who endeavoured, but in vain, to extract the ball. His lordship ultimately recovered after great suffering.

BETWEEN MR. SCAWEN AND MR. FITZGERALD.
September 1, 1773.

This day a duel was fought between Mr. Scawen and Mr. Fitzgerald, near Lisle, in which neither of the gentlemen received any hurt. Mr. Fitzgerald fired two pistols, one by design and one by accident. Mr. Scawen fired one in the air, when making some slight apology for the cause of the duel, the parties were reconciled, and returned highly satisfied with the issue of the affair.

BETWEEN MR. WHATELY AND JOHN TEMPLE, ESQ.,
December 11, 1773.

A duel was fought in Hyde Park, between Mr. Whately, brother of Mr. Whately, late Secretary to the Treasury, and John Temple, Esq., Lieutenant-Governor of New Hampshire, when the former was dangerously wounded.

The cause of quarrel was—the discovery of the confidential letters written by Messrs. Hutchinson, Oliver, Paxton, &c. &c., which were lately laid before the Assembly at Boston, and have been since published in most of the London papers.

---

Soon after this duel was fought, the following information was given to the public by Doctor Franklin:—

“Finding that two gentlemen have been unfortunately engaged in a duel about a transaction and its circumstances, of which both of them are totally ignorant and innocent, I think it incumbent on me to declare (for the prevention of further mischief, as far as such a declaration may contribute to prevent it) that I alone am the person who obtained, and transmitted to Boston, the letters in question. Mr. Whately could not communicate them, because they were never in his possession; and, for the same reason, they could not be taken from him by Mr. Temple. They were not of the nature of private letters between friends. They were written by public officers to persons in public stations, on public affairs, and intended to produce public measures. They were, therefore, handed to other public persons, who might be influenced by them to produce those measures. Their tendency was to incense the mother-country against her colonies; and, by the steps recommended, to widen the breach, which they effected. The chief caution expressed with regard to privacy was, to keep their contents from the colony agents, who, the writers apprehended, might return them, or copies of them, to America. That apprehension was, it seems, well-founded; for the first agent who laid his hands on them, thought it his duty to transmit them to his constituents.

(Signed) “Benjamin Franklin,

“Agent for the House of Representatives

of the Massachussets Bay.”

BETWEEN CAPTAIN STONEY AND THE REV. MR. BATE.
January 13, 1777.

A rencontre happened at the Adelphi Tavern, in the Strand, between Captain Stoney and Mr. Bate, editor of the Morning Post.

The cause of quarrel arose from some offensive paragraphs that had appeared in the Morning Post, highly reflecting on the character of Lady Strathmore. After having discharged their pistols at each other without effect, they drew their swords; and Mr. Stoney received a wound in the breast and arm, and Mr. Bate one in the thigh. Mr. Bate’s sword bent, and slanted against the captain’s breast-bone, of which Mr. Bate apprising him, Captain Stoney called to him to straighten it; and, in the interim, while the sword was under his foot for that purpose, the door was burst open, or the death of one of the parties would most certainly have ensued. On the Saturday following Captain S. married the lady whom he had thus defended at the hazard of his own life.

BETWEEN COUNT RICE AND VISCOUNT DU BARRY.
Bath, November 23, 1778.

On Saturday, the 17th inst., Count Rice and Viscount du Barry, being together in the house of the latter, a question arose between them about which they disagreed; and in the heat of the dispute, upon an assertion of Count Rice, Viscount du Barry said, “Cela n’est pas vrai,” to which Count Rice immediately observed, “You probably do not observe the idea that expression conveys in the language you speak in, and that it admits but of one very disagreeable interpretation.” Upon which the other replied, “You may interpret it as you please.” This ungentlemanlike treatment having provoked the resentment of Count Rice, and Viscount du Barry offering no apology, they immediately sent for seconds, who did not quit them till they got to Claverton Down, where they remained, together with a surgeon, till daylight, when they took the field, each armed with two pistols and a sword. The ground being marked out by the seconds, the Viscount du Barry fired first, and lodged a ball in Count Rice’s thigh, which penetrated as far as the bone. Count Rice fired his pistol, and wounded the Viscount in the breast. He went back two or three steps, then came forward again, and both at the same time presented their pistols to each other. The pistols flashed together in the pan, though one only was discharged. They then threw away their pistols, and took to their swords. When Count Rice had advanced within a few yards of the Viscount, he saw him fall, and heard him cry out, “Je vous demande ma vie.” To which Count Rice answered, “Je vous la donne.” But in a few seconds the Viscount fell back and expired.

Count Rice was brought with difficulty to Bath, being dangerously wounded. But he afterwards recovered.

The coroner’s inquest sat on the Viscount’s body; and after a mature examination of the witnesses and the Viscount’s servant, brought in their verdict “Manslaughter.”

BETWEEN A LIEUT.-COLONEL AND A LIEUTENANT OF MILITIA.
August 25, 1779.

A duel was fought at Coxheath between a Lieutenant of militia and a Lieut.-Colonel, when the latter was shot in the left breast, and expired immediately. The deceased had charged the lieutenant with exciting his men to mutiny, of which he was honourably acquitted by a court-martial.

BETWEEN THE HON. CHAS. JAS. FOX AND MR. ADAM.
November 30, 1779.

Mr. Fox having in debate, one day in the preceding week, animadverted, with some degree of asperity, on a particular species of argument, frequently made use of by the friends of ministers, viz.:—“That bad as the ministry were, it was not certain that the nation would be at all bettered by taking their opponents”—a Mr. Adam, who had made use of that argument in the same debate, called on Mr. Fox, some days after, for an explanation.

The following letters passed on the above occasion:—

“St. Alban’s Tavern, Saturday, 4 o’clock, Afternoon.

“Mr. Adam presents his compliments to Mr. Fox, and begs leave to represent to him, that upon considering again and again what had passed between them last night, it is impossible for him to have his character cleared to the public without inserting the following paragraph in the newspapers:—We have authority to assure the public, that in a conversation that passed between Mr. Fox and Mr. Adam, in consequence of the debate in the House of Commons on Thursday last, Mr. Fox declared that however much his speech may have been misrepresented, he did not mean to throw any personal reflection upon Mr. Adam.

“Major Humberstone does me the honour of delivering this to you, and will bring your answer.

“To the Hon. Charles James Fox.”

“Sir, “I am very sorry it is utterly inconsistent with my ideas of propriety, to authorise the putting any thing into the newspapers, relative to a speech which, in my opinion, required no explanation. You, who heard the speech, must know, that it did convey no personal reflection upon you, unless you felt yourself in the predicament upon which I animadverted. The account of my speech in the newspapers is certainly incorrect, and certainly unauthorised by me; and therefore, with respect to them, I have nothing to say.

“Neither the conversation that passed at Brookes’s, nor this letter, is of a secret nature; and if you have any wish to relate the one, or to show the other, you are perfectly at liberty so to do.

I am, &c. &c.

“Chesterfield-street, half-past 2, Sunday, Nov. 28.

“To —— Adam, Esq.”

“Sir, “As you must be sensible that the speech printed in the newspapers reflects upon me personally, and as it is from them only that the public can have their information, it is evident that, unless that is contradicted by your authority in as public a manner as it was given, my character must be injured. Your refusal to do this entitles me to presume that you approve of the manner in which that speech has been given to the public, and justifies me in demanding the only satisfaction such an injury will admit of.

“Major Humberstone is empowered to settle all particulars; and the sooner this affair is brought to a conclusion, the more agreeable to me.

“I have the honour to be, &c. &c.

“To the Hon. Charles James Fox.”

In consequence of the above, the parties met, according to agreement, at eight o’clock in the morning. After the ground was measured out, at the distance of fourteen paces, Mr. Adam desired Mr. Fox to fire; to which Mr. Fox replied, “Sir, I have no quarrel with you, do you fire.” Mr. Adam then fired, and wounded Mr. Fox, which, we believe, was not at all perceived by Mr. Adam, as it was not distinctly seen by either of ourselves. Mr. Fox then fired, without effect. We then interfered, asking Mr. Adam if he was satisfied. Mr. Adam replied, “Will Mr. Fox declare he meant no personal attack upon my character?” Upon which Mr. Fox said, this was no place for apology, and desired him to go on. Mr. Adam fired his second pistol without effect. Mr. Fox fired his remaining pistol in the air; and then saying, as the affair was ended, he had no difficulty in declaring, he meant no more personal affront to Mr. Adam than he did to either of the other gentlemen present. Mr. Adam replied, “Sir, you have behaved like a man of honour.”

Mr. Fox then mentioned that he believed himself wounded; and upon his opening his waistcoat it was found it was so, but to all appearance slightly. The parties then separated, and Mr. Fox’s wound, on examination, was found not likely to produce any dangerous consequences.[^[7]]

BETWEEN COUNSELLOR R—— AND ——.
November, 1779.

A remarkable trial lately happened in the Court of King’s Bench, in Ireland. A Counsellor R— had fought a duel with a gentleman, and killed him. He traversed the indictment, and imagined the jury, as usual, would bring in their verdict of “manslaughter.” But the barrister found himself mistaken: they deemed the intentions of two men going out, premeditatedly, to fight, to be “malice aforethought;” and to the astonishment of the Court, brought the prisoner in “guilty,”—Death. The judges desired them to recommend him to the Bench as an object of mercy. They did it with reluctance.

BETWEEN THE EARL OF SHELBURNE AND COLONEL FULLARTON.
March 22, 1780.

Mr. Fullarton, member for Plympton, and late secretary to Lord Stormont, in his embassy to the Court of France, complained to the House of the ungentlemanlike behaviour of the Earl of Shelburne, who, he said, with all the aristocratic insolence that marks that nobleman’s character, had, in effect, dared to say, that he and his regiment were as ready to act against the liberties of England, as against her enemies. This occasioned some altercation between those who were the friends of each party; but being generally thought unparliamentary, it went at that time no farther.

However, on the 22d of March the parties had a meeting.

Lord Shelburne, with Lord Frederick Cavendish for his second, and Mr. Fullarton, with Lord Balcarras for his second, met at half-past five in Hyde Park, March 22, 1780. Lord Balcarras and Lord F. Cavendish proposed that both parties should obey the seconds. Lord Shelburne and Mr. Fullarton walked together, while Lord Balcarras and Lord F. Cavendish adjusted all ceremonials, and fixed on pistols as the proper weapons. When they came to the ground, Lord Shelburne told them that his pistols were already loaded, and offered to draw them, which was rejected by Lord Balcarras and Colonel Fullarton; upon which Lord Balcarras loaded Colonel Fullarton’s pistols. The seconds having agreed that twelve paces was a proper distance, the parties took their ground. Colonel Fullarton desired Lord Shelburne to fire, which his Lordship declined; and Colonel Fullarton was ordered by the seconds to fire. He fired and missed. Lord Shelburne returned it, and missed. Mr. Fullarton then fired his second pistol, and hit Lord Shelburne in the right groin, which his Lordship signified; upon which every body ran up, and the seconds interfered. Lord F. Cavendish offered to take the pistol from Lord Shelburne; but his Lordship refused to deliver it up, saying, “I have not fired that pistol.” Mr. Fullarton returned immediately to his ground, which he had left with a view of assisting his Lordship, and repeatedly desired his Lordship to fire at him. Lord Shelburne said, “Sure, sir, you do not think I would fire my pistol at you;” and fired it in the air. The parties and their seconds joined together. Lord Balcarras asked Lord Shelburne if he had any difficulty in declaring he meant nothing personal to Colonel Fullarton. His Lordship replied, “You know it has taken another course; this is no time for explanation.” His Lordship then said to Colonel Fullarton, “Although I am wounded, I am able to go on if you feel any resentment.” Colonel Fullarton said, “He hoped he was incapable of harbouring such a sentiment.” Lord F. Cavendish declared, that, from the character he had heard of Colonel Fullarton, he believed so. Colonel Fullarton said, “As your Lordship is wounded, and has fired in the air, it is impossible for me to go on.”

Lord Balcarras and Lord F. Cavendish immediately declared, “That the parties had ended the affair by behaving as men of the strictest honour.”

---

On hearing of the above affair, the following message was sent from the City:—

“The Committee of Common Council for corresponding with the committees appointed, or to be appointed, by the several counties, cities, and boroughs in this kingdom, anxious for the preservation of the valuable life of so true a friend of the people as the Earl of Shelburne, respectfully inquire after his Lordship’s safety, highly endangered in consequence of his upright and spirited conduct in Parliament.

“By order of the Committee,

“W. Rix.”

“The Earl of Shelburne.”

BETWEEN MR. DONOVAN AND CAPT. JAMES HANSON.
April, 1780.

At the assizes at Kingston, in Surrey, the trials on the Crown side came on before the Hon. Mr. Justice Gould, and a special jury, when Mr. Donovan (who voluntarily surrendered himself) was tried for having killed, in a duel, Captain James Hanson. It appeared by a number of respectable witnesses, that the deceased was entirely in fault, and had forced Mr. Donovan to meet him in a field near the Dog and Duck. It also appeared that the only ground of quarrel between the prisoner and the deceased was, that Mr. Donovan interfered between Captain Hanson and another person, and prevented their fighting; on which Captain Hanson gave him very abusive language, and insisted that “he would make him smell powder.”

The deceased was wounded by a pistol bullet in the belly, and lived about twenty-four hours after. He declared to two eminent surgeons who attended him, and to several other persons, that Mr. Donovan behaved, during the action, and after it, with the greatest honour, tenderness, and concern. And he particularly desired that no prosecution should be carried on against him, as he himself was solely in fault, by an unprovoked rashness of temper and heat of passion.

The learned Judge gave an excellent charge to the jury, and said, “Though he allowed that all the circumstances were as favourable to the prisoner, as in such a case could be; yet, as the idea of honour was so often mentioned, he must say, and inform the jury and the auditors, that it was false honour in men to break the laws of God and their country; that going out to fight a duel was, in both parties, a deliberate resolution to commit murder; and there could be no honour in so savage a custom, which, however disguised in words, is contrary to the principles and happiness of society, and ought to be reprobated in every well-regulated community.”

The jury, without going out of court, acquitted Mr. Donovan of the murder, and found him “guilty” of “manslaughter,” on the coroner’s inquest. The Judge fined him ten pounds to the King, which being paid in the court, he was immediately discharged.

BETWEEN THE REV. MR. BATE AND MR. R——, A STUDENT OF THE LAW.
September 7, 1780.

A duel was fought in Hyde Park, between the Rev. Mr. Bate, of Surrey-street, and Mr. R——, a student of the law, late of St. John’s College, Cambridge.

The quarrel arose from some circumstances relating to the conduct of the Morning Post, in which they were both engaged. The chance of the first fire falling to Mr. Bate, he discharged his pistol, and hit Mr. R—— in the fleshy part of the right arm. The wound, however, was not sufficient to incapacitate him from returning the fire, which he did, but without effect.

The seconds now interfered, and the affair was adjusted.

BETWEEN THE REV. MR. ALLEN AND L. DULANY, ESQ.
June 26, 1782.

Died, in Park-street, Grosvenor-square, Lloyd Dulany, Esq., a gentleman of a most respectable character, and large property in Maryland.

His death is said to be occasioned by a wound which he received on Tuesday evening last, in a duel with the Rev. Mr. Allen, in Hyde Park. The second of the former was —— Delancey, Esq.; and of the latter, Robert Morris, Esq. He was attended by Dr. Millman, and Messrs. Pott and Adair. The magistrates of Bow-street having advertised a reward of ten guineas each, for the apprehension of the Rev. Mr. Allen, and Robert Morris, Esq., they were, in consequence, apprehended, and committed to Tothill-fields Bridewell.

July 6, 1782.

Yesterday the Rev. Mr. Allen surrendered himself at the Sessions’ House, in the Old Bailey, when he and Robert Morris, Esq., were indicted for the “wilful murder” of Lloyd Dulany, Esq.

Mr. Justice Buller, in his charge to the jury, observed, that the case before them consisted of two parts, law and fact. As to law, there is not, nor ever was a doubt, that where two persons meet together deliberately to fight a duel, and one of them is killed, the other is guilty of “murder,” and his second likewise. In respect to the fact, he stated that the quarrel arose from a circumstance of three years’ standing. A paragraph called, “Characters of Principal Men in Rebellion,” published in the Morning Post, June 29, 1779, referred to the first and fifth of July, the same year, and now recognised by the prisoner Allen, in a letter proved to be his handwriting, avowing himself the author of those characters, retorting the charge of “liar and assassin,” upon the deceased; telling him he did not mean to dispute with, but to punish him; and if he (the deceased) harboured any resentment or revenge, the bearer (Morris) would put him in the way of securing its immediate execution. This brought on sundry verbal messages, and at last, on the 18th of June, a meeting of Mr. Dulany, Mr. Delancey his second, and Mr. Morris; from which they went to Mr. Wogden’s, gun-maker, to get Mr. Allen’s pistols charged; and about half-past nine in the evening, after measuring eight yards, discharged their pistols, when the deceased fell.

Mr. Delancey said that Mr. Morris repeatedly urged deferring the duel to the next day.

One Lydia Lepine deposed, that she saw the prisoner Allen shooting at a mark, in a field near Blackfriars’ Bridge, with pistols, between eleven and twelve o’clock, on the 18th of June. Her master and his son confirmed the fact; but could not swear positively to the person. His Lordship concluded with observing, that a mistaken point of honour was not to bias the judges and the jury in such a case.

The jury withdrew about twenty minutes, and brought in a verdict, Allen, “Guilty of Manslaughter.” Morris, “Not Guilty.” The Recorder then, after a pathetic speech, pronounced sentence on Mr. Allen, of one shilling fine, and to be imprisoned six months in Newgate.

Bamber Gascoigne, Esq., and two ladies, proved an alibi as to shooting at a mark; and they, as well as Lords Bateman, Mountmorris, and several other persons, gave Allen an excellent character. Mr. Morris brought no witnesses.

DUEL PREVENTED.
March 9, 1783.

Two officers of the army, with their seconds, and a surgeon, met in a field near Kensington Gravel Pits, to fight a duel; but were happily prevented by the interposition of a clergyman, who lives in that neighbourhood, who happened to be passing by as they alighted from their carriages, and who suspecting their intention, interfered. The polite and affectionate address of this clergyman effected an honourable reconciliation.

BETWEEN MR. RIDDELL AND MR. CUNNINGHAM.
April 21, 1783.

A duel was fought between Mr. Riddell, of the Horse Grenadiers, and Mr. Cunningham, of the Scots Greys. Both these gentlemen belonged formerly to the Scots Greys, and had differed at play. Mr. Riddell had challenged Mr. Cunningham, which challenge Mr. Cunningham had declined; but many of the gentlemen of the Scots Greys reviving, at intervals, that circumstance, Mr. Cunningham found it necessary, for the full restoration of his honour, that he should call upon Mr. Riddell. This appeal, Mr. Riddell considering as out of season, declined attending to, till he had consulted his brother officers, who agreed there was no obligation on him to answer Mr. Cunningham.

This being their determination, Mr. Cunningham resolved upon forcing him to the point; and meeting him accidentally at Mr. Christie’s, their agent, spat in his face. Mr. Riddell observed that this being a fresh affront, he should take notice of it, and took his departure. He then proceeded to make a few arrangements in his affairs. But before he had completed them, he received a billet from Mr. Cunningham, reminding him of the affront which he had passed upon him, and declaring his readiness to give him satisfaction. This note coming while the wafer was yet wet to the hands of Sir James Riddell, who was under some apprehension of his son’s situation, he opened it; and having read it, closed it, without taking any other notice of its contents, than providing, in consequence of it, the assistance of several surgeons of the first ability. The meeting was fixed. They were both punctual: Mr. Riddell attended by Captain Topham, of the Horse Grenadiers; and Mr. Cunningham, by Captain Cunningham, of the 69th regiment of foot.

Eight paces were first measured by the seconds, and afterwards the contending parties took their ground. They tossed up for the first fire, which Mr. Riddell won. Mr. Riddell fired, and shot Mr. Cunningham under the right breast, the ball passing, as is supposed, through the ribs, and lodging on the left side near the back. The moment Mr. Cunningham received the shot he reeled, but did not fall. He opened his waistcoat, and declared he was mortally wounded. Mr. Riddell still remained on his ground, when Mr. Cunningham, after a pause of two minutes, declared he would not be taken off the field till he had fired at his adversary. Mr. Cunningham then presented his pistol, and shot Mr. Riddell in the groin; he immediately fell, and was carried in a hackney-coach to Mr. Topham’s. The unhappy man lingered until seven o’clock on Tuesday morning, and then expired.

Wednesday, April 23.

The coroner’s inquest sat on the body of George Riddell, Esq., who was killed in the rencontre, as above related.

The jury sat four hours; and after a very strict examination of the seconds, and a servant of the deceased, brought in their verdict, “Manslaughter.”

BETWEEN CAPTAIN I—— AND COLONEL P——.
June, 1783.

On the 31st ult. a duel was fought near Bangor Ferry, Caernarvonshire, between Captain I—— and Colonel P——. In consequence of several disputes which had happened relating to the Anglesea militia, and a challenge given, some time ago, by Captain I—— to Colonel P——, they were bound over to preserve the peace for a year. That time having expired, Captain I—— sent a message, that he should be at the Ferry-house, at six o’clock, on Saturday morning, attended by Captain M——. The parties met. The seconds marked the ground at twelve paces, and tossed up for the first fire, which Colonel P—— gained. He fired, and shot Captain I—— in the right thigh, who strove to return the fire, but his pistol missed. Captain I—— then demanded a second shot; which not being immediately complied with, he was unable to bear longer on his thigh, and was carried off by the assistance of the seconds.

BETWEEN THE HON. COLONEL COSMO GORDON AND LIEUT.-COLONEL THOMAS.
September 4, 1783.

At six this morning, the Hon. Colonel Cosmo Gordon and Lieut.-Colonel Thomas met at the Ring in Hyde Park, to fight a duel. It was agreed upon by their seconds, that, after receiving their pistols, they should advance, and fire when they pleased. On arriving within about eight yards of each other they presented, and drew their triggers nearly at the same time, when only the Colonel’s pistol went off. The Lieut.-Colonel having adjusted his pistol, fired at the Colonel, who received a severe contusion on the thigh. Their second pistols were fired without effect, and their friends called to reload them; after which they again advanced to nearly the same distance, and fired, when the Lieut.-Colonel fell, having received a ball in his body. He received immediate assistance from a surgeon, who attended the Colonel in case of need, and who extracted the ball on the field; the wound notwithstanding proved mortal.

BETWEEN MR. MONRO, OF THE 16TH REGIMENT OF DRAGOONS, AND MR. GREEN.
October 17, 1783.

This morning, about seven o’clock, Mr. Monro, of the 16th Regiment of Dragoons and Mr. Green, with their seconds, met in a field near Battersea Bridge, for the purpose of settling a dispute which took place a few evenings ago. They took their ground at the distance of about six yards. They then fired three pistols each, the last of which wounded Mr. Green in the side. The seconds interfered, and asked Mr. Green if he was satisfied. He said, “Not except Mr. Monro made him a public apology.” “That,” Mr. Monro said, “he now would not do.” Mr. Green replied, “Then one of us must fall.” They again took their ground, and fired each two pistols more. One ball entered Mr. Monro’s knee, and Mr. Green received a shot which has since proved fatal, the ball entering a little above the groin.

BETWEEN LIEUT. HARRISON AND M. H. VAN BERKENSHAM.
October, 1783.

This afternoon a duel was fought behind the Foundling Hospital, between Lieut. Harrison, of the Marines, and M. Harman Van Berkensham, an officer in the Dutch service. When, after marking out the distance of eight paces, Mr. Berkensham fired first and missed. Lieut. Harrison’s bullet grazed the cheek of his antagonist, who insisted on firing again, which he did without effect; and Lieut. Harrison fired his second pistol into the air. The seconds interposed, the parties were reconciled, and both went home good friends.

BETWEEN SIR J. LOWTHER AND SERGEANT BOLTON.
April, 1784.

A duel was fought in this month between Sir James Lowther, and Sergeant Bolton, when three pistols were discharged on each side, but no material injury was done to either of the combatants; and the seconds interposing, they were reconciled.

BETWEEN AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY AND A GERMAN OFFICER.
August, 1784.

An officer in the navy, and a gentleman in the German service, fought a duel with swords and pistols, in a field near Bayswater. Four pistols were discharged, one of which slightly wounded the former in the left shoulder; but in the rencontre with swords, the latter was run through the thigh. A surgeon, who attended, stopped the effusion of blood, which was great; and the gentleman was taken to his apartments in Dean-street, dangerously ill.

This, it appears, was the second duel which these gentlemen had fought. The first was in France, where they were both desperately wounded. The quarrel was a difference of opinion on the conduct of General Burgoyne in the Hudson’s Bay expedition, in which they both served.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN BRISES AND CAPTAIN BULKLEY.
February, 1785.

A duel was fought between Captains Brises and Bulkley. The first shot being won by the latter, he fired, and narrowly missed his antagonist, who discharged his pistol in the air; and the seconds interposing, the affair ended in the field.

BETWEEN LIEUTENANT F—— AND MR. GORDON.
March, 1785.

A duel was fought between Lieut. F——, son of General F——, then quartered in the Old Barracks at Chatham, and a gentleman of the name of Gordon, who was on a visit to his brother, an officer in the same barracks; when Mr. Gordon was so desperately wounded in one of his legs that amputation became necessary. The affair originated in a quarrel at cards.

BETWEEN LORD MACARTNEY AND MR. SADLEIR.
April, 1785.

The duel between Lord Macartney and Mr. Sadleir, which was at first thought unfounded, appears to have been a serious business. They, with their seconds, Mr. Davidson and Major Grattan, took their ground about seven o’clock in the morning, on the 24th of September, 1784. The distance marked by the seconds was ten paces. The lot to fire first fell to Mr. Sadleir; who firing accordingly, the ball struck Lord Macartney on the ribs of the left side, which was not known to the seconds till after his Lordship had likewise fired, but without effect. It had been previously agreed between the seconds, if, after the first fire, no material execution had been done, to interpose their good offices to effect a reconciliation. This they were about to do when it was discovered that Lord Macartney had been wounded. When the previous agreement was mentioned to his Lordship, and he was asked his sentiments, his answer was—“That he came there to give Mr. Sadleir satisfaction, and he was still ready to do so.” And Mr. Sadleir being told that Lord Macartney was wounded, and that, in the present circumstances, the affair could not honourably be pursued any farther, he acquiesced, and declared that he was satisfied. And thus the affair ended.

BETWEEN THE EARL OF A—— AND MR. F—— M——.
June 19, 1785.

This day a duel was fought, near Grosvenor-gate, between the Right Hon. the Earl of A——, of the kingdom of Ireland, and Mr. F—— M——, of the same kingdom.

The affair happened from a punctilio of honour. After they had taken their ground, both attempted to fire at the same time; but his Lordship’s pistol missing fire, and Mr. M——’s shot not taking effect, the affair ended satisfactorily.

BETWEEN COMTE DE GERSDORFF AND MONS. L. LE FAVRE.
July, 1785.

A challenge was circulated through Europe by the public prints, from Comte de Gersdorff to Mons. Louis Le Favre; the former of whom offered a hundred louis d’ors to the latter, to bear his charges to any place which he might appoint for the meeting. To this challenge Mons. Le Favre afterwards published the following answer:—

“Mons. Le Comte, ”Filbourg, April 28, 1785.

“I hasten to answer your circular letter inserted in the public prints. Our interview, if you think proper, shall be at B—— le D——. As I am in the neighbourhood of the city, I do not want much money to carry me thither; and I thank you sincerely for the hundred louis which you offer me.

“I have the honour to be, &c., Le Favre.”

The Comte in his replication pleads indisposition. But the parties at length met; and there never was such a farce of a fight. Their seconds measured the ground at twenty-five paces. The heroes took their stations, and fired a pistol or two each. Their seconds commended their bravery: the Comte forgave the Secretary, and there was an end of the combat.

BETWEEN LORD W. MURRAY AND MR. G. WAUGH.
November, 1785.

By the East India packet, advice was received of a duel fought between Lord William Murray, and Lieutenant Gilbert Waugh, of the 73rd Regiment, on the 21st of October, 1784, in which the latter was mortally wounded, and died three days after, greatly regretted.

BETWEEN LIEUT. GAMBLE AND LIEUT. MOLLISON.
January, 1786.

A duel was fought at Chatham Lines, between Lieutenant Gamble and Lieutenant Mollison, both of them of the Marines. No compromise could be arranged by the seconds, and Lieutenant Mollison firing first, hit his antagonist in the upper part of his thigh. Lieutenant Gamble fell, but suddenly starting up, as Mr. Mollison advanced towards him, discharged his pistol, and the ball shattered the humerus or upper bone of Mr. Mollison’s arm, a little above the elbow. Here the seconds interposed, and the combatants were taken into their quarters. Mr. Mollison’s arm has since been amputated, and both the gentlemen are now perfectly reconciled, and as good friends as ever.

BETWEEN LORD MACARTNEY AND MAJOR-GEN. STEWART.
June 8, 1786.

A duel was fought near Kensington, between Lord Macartney and Major-General Stewart, of which the following is an authentic account:—

The place and time of meeting having been previously fixed, the parties arrived about half-past four in the morning, and took their ground at the distance of twelve short paces, measured off by the seconds, who delivered to each one pistol, keeping possession of the remaining arms.

General Stewart told Lord Macartney, he doubted, as his Lordship was short-sighted, he would not be able to see him. His Lordship replied, “he did perfectly well.” When the seconds had retired a little on one side, and as the parties were about to level, General Stewart observed to Lord Macartney, that his pistol was not cocked. His Lordship thanked him, and cocked. When they had levelled, General Stewart said “he was ready.” His Lordship answered, “he was likewise ready.” And they both fired within a few instants of each other. The seconds observing Lord Macartney to be wounded, stepped up to him, and declared the matter must rest here. General Stewart said, “this is no satisfaction;” and asked if his Lordship was not able to fire another pistol. His Lordship replied, “he would try with pleasure,” and urged Colonel Fullarton to permit him to proceed. The seconds, however, declared it was impossible, and they would on no account allow it. General Stewart said, “then I must defer it till another occasion;” on which his Lordship answered, “if that be the case, we had better proceed now. I am here in consequence of a message from General Stewart, who called upon me to give him satisfaction in my private capacity, for offence taken at my public conduct; and to evince that personal safety is no consideration with me, I have nothing personal: the General may proceed as he thinks fit.” General Stewart said, “it was his Lordship’s personal conduct to him that he resented.”

The seconds then put an end to all further conversation between the parties, neither of whom had yet quitted his ground; General Stewart, in consequence of his situation, having been under the necessity, from the first, of putting his back to a tree. The surgeons, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Home, who were attending at a little distance, were brought up by Colonel Fullarton. Colonel Gordon, in the mean time, assisted his Lordship in taking off his coat, and requested him to sit down, apprehending he might be faint through loss of blood. Colonel Gordon then left the ground, in company with General Stewart, and an easy carriage was provided to convey his Lordship home.

(Signed) W. Fullarton.
A. Gordon.

BETWEEN COUNSELLOR HUTCHINSON AND LORD MOUNTMORRIS.
May, 1787.

On the 28th ult. a duel took place between Counsellor Hutchinson, third son to the Provost of the University of Dublin, and Lord Mountmorris, in consequence of some words spoken by the latter in the House of Lords, on Monday, the 23rd of April, of which his Lordship refused to give an explanation.

The parties met at Donnybrook; and the seconds having measured the ground, both fired at the same instant: when Lord Mountmorris fell, in consequence of a wound under the arm, and the seconds interposed to prevent farther bloodshed.

BETWEEN CHEVALIER LA B—— AND CAPTAIN S——.
June, 1787.

About three in the morning, on the 10th, a duel was fought between the Chevalier La B——, an officer in the French service, and Captain S—— of the 11th Regiment of Foot. The ground measured was five paces; and the first shot that was fired by Captain S—— took place on the Chevalier’s breast, but was fortunately prevented from penetrating by the intervention of his coat button; on which he fired his pistol into the air. The seconds interposed, and the combatants parted friends. The expression for which Captain S—— called out the Chevalier was to this effect—that the English army had more phlegm than spirit.

BETWEEN SIR JOHN MACPHERSON AND MAJOR BROWNE.
September 10, 1787.

A duel took place in Hyde Park, between Sir John Macpherson and Major Browne. The parties met near Grosvenor-gate, about eleven o’clock. The pistols were loaded on the ground, and it was agreed they both should fire at the same time. They did so. Sir John received the Major’s second fire; but his own pistol missed fire. Colonel Murray, second to Sir John, then asked Major Roberts, who was second to Major Browne, if his friend was satisfied. Major Browne said he was satisfied that Sir John had behaved with great gallantry, and much like a man of honour. But some further explanation being required on the part of the Major, a third shot was exchanged. And then both parties quitting the ground, came up to each other, said a few words, and parted with salutations of civility.

Dublin, January 31, 1788.

This day Robert Keon, Esq., was brought up to the Court of King’s Bench, to receive sentence for the murder of George Nugent Reynolds, Esq.

The circumstances of this murder were as follow:—These two gentlemen went out to fight a duel; and when Mr. Reynolds, previously to coming to action, was in the act of saluting Mr. Keon, with his hat in his hand, wishing him a good morning, the latter fired his pistol, and shot him through the head. Upon this Mr. Plunket, Mr. Reynolds’s second, called out, “A horrid murder!” On which Mr. Keon’s brother replied, “If you don’t like it, take that,” and snapped his pistol at Mr. Plunket, which luckily did not go off. The jury found Mr. Keon “guilty” in November last; but his counsel moved an arrest of judgment, and pleaded several errors in the different proceedings, to stop the sentence. The Court, after the most solemn arguments, over-ruled all the objections, and passed sentence of death upon him, according to the verdict, and he was executed on the sixteenth of the following month.

BETWEEN HIS R. H. THE DUKE OF YORK AND COL. LENNOX.
May, 1789.

On the 17th instant, a duel took place between the Duke of York and Colonel Lennox. Lord Rawdon was second to the Duke of York, and the Earl of Winchilsea to Colonel Lennox.

The dispute originated in an expression of the Duke of York, that “Colonel Lennox had heard words spoken to him at Daubigny’s, to which no gentleman ought to have submitted.” This observation being repeated to Colonel Lennox, he took the opportunity, while his Royal Highness was on the parade to address him, desiring to know what were the words which he submitted to hear, and by whom they were spoken. To this his Royal Highness gave no other answer than by ordering him to his post. The parade being over, his Royal Highness went into the Orderly-room; and sending for the Colonel, intimated to him, in the presence of all the officers, that he desired to derive no protection from his rank as a prince, and his station as commanding officer; but that, when not on duty, he wore a brown coat, and was ready, as a private gentleman, to give the Colonel satisfaction.

After this declaration, Colonel Lennox wrote a circular letter to every member of the club at Daubigny’s, requesting to know whether such words had been used to him, and appointing a particular day for an answer from each; their silence to be considered as a declaration that no such words could be recollected.

On the expiration of the term limited for an answer to the circular letter, the Colonel sent a written message to his Royal Highness to this purport—that not being able to recollect any occasion on which words had been spoken to him at Daubigny’s, to which a gentleman ought not to submit, he had taken the step which had appeared to him most likely to gain information of the words to which his Royal Highness had alluded, and of the person who had used them; that none of the members of the club had given him information of any such insult being in their knowledge; and therefore he expected, in justice to his character, that his Royal Highness should contradict the report as publicly as he had stated it.

This letter was delivered to his Royal Highness by the Earl of Winchilsea; when, the answer returned not proving satisfactory, a message was sent to his Royal Highness desiring a meeting, and the time and place were settled that evening.

The meeting took place on Wimbledon Common. The Duke of York received Colonel Lennox’s fire, but did not fire himself; the ball from Colonel Lennox grazed his Royal Highness’s curl.

Some days after this Colonel Lennox made a requisition to the Duke of York, as Colonel of the Coldstream Regiment, that his Royal Highness would permit a call of the officers of that corps, in order that certain propositions touching his conduct and situation might be submitted to their consideration.

His Royal Highness informed the friend of Mr. Lennox,—that he could not possibly oppose any design which might tend to relieve Mr. Lennox from his present embarrassment. The meeting of this military convention was held at the Orderly-room; and after much deliberation, adjourned to the 1st of June; when, considerable discussion having taken place, the convention came to the following resolution:—“It is the opinion of the Coldstream Regiment, that subsequent to the 15th of May, the day of the meeting at the Orderly-room, Lieut.-Colonel Lennox has behaved with courage; but, from the peculiar difficulty of his situation, not with judgment.”

Colonel Lennox soon after exchanged his company in the Duke of York’s regiment, for the commission of Lieut.-Colonel in the 35th Regiment of Foot.

BETWEEN CAPT. E. PELLEW AND LIEUT. I. M. NORTHEY.
June, 1789.

A duel was fought at Exeter, in consequence of a previous dispute, between Captain Edward Pellew of the navy, and Lieutenant I. M. Northey. The former was attended to the field by Captain Reynolds; the latter, by his brother, Thomas Northey, Esq. The parties took their ground at twelve paces; and a signal being given, they both fired, when Lieutenant Northey’s ball passed through his opponent’s coat. A second signal being given, as agreed, both parties reserved their fire. An explanation between the friends took place, and the matter was settled to the satisfaction and honour of all parties. To prevent misrepresentation, the foregoing account is published by the seconds.

BETWEEN CAPT. TONGUE AND CAPT. PATERSON.
June 19, 1789.

A duel was fought between Captain Tongue, of his Majesty’s 6th Regiment, and Captain Paterson, in the East India Company’s military service, in which Captain Tongue was wounded in the side.

The cause of the quarrel originated in the street. Captain Tongue acknowledged himself the aggressor.

BETWEEN COL. LENNOX AND THEOPHILUS SWIFT, ESQ.
July 1, 1789.

This evening, in consequence of some expressions reflecting on the character of Lieut.-Colonel Lennox, published in a pamphlet, with the name of Theophilus Swift, Esq., Colonel Lennox called on Mr. Swift, and demanded satisfaction.

They met in a field near the Uxbridge-road, attended by Sir William Augustus Browne and Lieut.-Colonel Phipps. Ten paces were measured by the seconds; and it was agreed that Lieut.-Colonel Lennox should fire first. The parties having taken their ground, Colonel Lennox asked if Mr. Swift was ready. On his answering that he was, Colonel Lennox fired, and the ball took place in the body of Mr. Swift, whose pistol, on his receiving the wound, went off without effect. The parties then quitted the ground.

It is but just to say, that both gentlemen behaved with the utmost degree of coolness and intrepidity. Mr. Swift has since recovered from his wound.

BETWEEN J. P. CURRAN, ESQ., M.P., AND MAJOR HOBART.L
April 1, 1790.

A duel was fought in Luttrelstown, between J. P. Curran, Esq., M.P., and Major Hobart, secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, occasioned by some words spoken in Parliament.

The meeting was at the Hermitage, one of Lord Carhampton’s seats. Mr. Curran was attended by Mr. Egan; Major Hobart, by Lord Carhampton. Being put to their ground, and having agreed to fire as they chose, Mr. Curran fired first, without effect; whereupon Major Hobart said, he hoped Mr. Curran was satisfied. Mr. Egan then called out to Major Hobart that he had not fired, as did Mr. Curran. The Major advancing a step or two towards Mr. Curran, repeated what he had said before. Mr. Curran replied, “I am sorry, Sir, you have taken this advantage; but you have made it impossible for me not to be satisfied.”

BETWEEN SIR GEORGE RAMSAY AND CAPTAIN MACRAE.
Edinburgh, April 15, 1790.

A duel was fought yesterday, near this city. The parties were Sir George Ramsay and Captain Macrae. The circumstances are as follows:—

A servant of Sir George’s, keeping a chair at the door of the Edinburgh Theatre, was ordered by Captain Macrae to remove it. On his objecting, some words ensued; and the fracas concluded in Captain Macrae chastising the servant very severely.

Meeting the next day with Sir George Ramsay, he insisted on his dismissing the man from his service. This was refused, on the ground, that whatever was the misconduct of the servant, he had already received a sufficient punishment.

A challenge was the immediate consequence of this refusal. The parties met on Musselborough Links, Sir George Ramsay accompanied by Sir William Maxwell, and Captain Macrae by Mr. Hay.

The former fired first, but without effect; Captain Macrae returned the fire, and lodged his ball near the heart of his antagonist. Sir George languished in much agony until Friday morning, when he expired. He was a gentleman of the most amiable character and disposition; and had but lately married a beautiful young lady, the sister of Lord Saltoun.

Captain Macrae and his second immediately fled. The poor fellow, on whose account this duel happened, no sooner heard of his master’s fate than he fell into strong convulsions, and died in the course of a few hours.

July, 1790.

On Monday, the High Court of Justiciary met at Edinburgh, for the trial of James Macrae, of Hollmains, indicted at the instance of the Hon. Lady Ramsay, and Sir William Ramsay, of Banff, Bart., and of his Majesty Advocate, for the murder of the late Sir George Ramsay, Bart., on the 14th of April last. Mr. Macrae not having appeared to stand trial, sentence of fugitation (outlawry) was pronounced against him.

BETWEEN MR. STEPHENS AND MR. ANDERSON.
Margate, Sept. 21, 1790.

Yesterday a duel was fought at Kingsgate, between Mr. Stephens, son of Philip Stephens, Esq., Secretary to the Admiralty, and a Mr. Anderson.

It originated in such a trifling circumstance as a dispute about the shutting of a window in the public rooms. The parties fired each a pistol without effect; but at the second fire Mr. Anderson’s ball entered between Mr. Stephens’s under lip and chin; and passing to the jugular vein in the neck, occasioned his almost instantaneous death.

Mr. Anderson was apprehended soon after; and this day the coroner’s inquest sat on the body, and brought in their verdict “manslaughter.”

The bill of indictment afterwards presented against Mr. Anderson for murder, in his unhappy meeting with Stephens, was unanimously thrown out as frivolous and unfounded, by the grand jury at Dover.

BETWEEN CAPT. H. ASTON AND LIEUT. FITZGERALD.
June 25, 1790.

A duel was fought between Captain Harvey Aston, and Lieutenant Fitzgerald of the 60th Regiment of Foot. The cause of the dispute happened at Ranelagh; but so long before the challenge, that it was imagined all idea of hostility had ceased. A field belonging to Chalk Lodge Farm, near Hampstead, was the chosen spot, and break of day the time appointed. Lord Charles Fitzroy was the second to Captain Aston, and Mr. Hood was second to Lieutenant Fitzgerald.

Ten yards was the ground measured; and Mr. Fitzgerald had the first fire. He rested his pistol on the left arm, and took aim accordingly. The ball took a direction so as to glance on Mr. Aston’s wrist, and passed from thence under his right cheek bone, and through the neck. On receiving this wound, Captain Aston called to his antagonist,—“Are you satisfied?” The answer returned was, “I am satisfied.” Captain Aston then retired from the ground, and was assisted to his carriage. Happily the wound is not likely to prove mortal.

BETWEEN MR. GRAHAM AND MR. JULIUS.
July 19, 1791.

An unfortunate rencontre took place this morning upon Blackheath, between Mr. Graham, an eminent special pleader, of the Temple, and Mr. Julius, a pupil in the office of Messrs. Graham, attorneys, of Lincoln’s Inn, who are brothers of the former.

The parties had dined together at the house of Mr. Black, the surveyor, upon Epping Forest, on Sunday; and after dinner, having drunk freely, one of them expressing some free opinions concerning religion!!! much abrupt language passed between them. They were reconciled, however, on that day, and returned to town in the same carriage.

On Monday, they met again after dinner, at the chambers of Mr. Graham, Lincoln’s Inn, the brother of the deceased, where the dispute was unfortunately renewed, though apparently without malignity. No challenge was given that night; but in the morning, the deceased called upon Mr. Julius for an apology for some expression; which being refused, they went out together, Mr. Graham attended by Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Julius by Mr. Maxwell. A pupil of an eminent surgeon attended them to Blackheath, where Mr. Graham fell by a shot which passed almost through the lower part of the belly. He was brought to town in a post-chaise, and the exertions of the most eminent of the faculty were in vain used for his relief; the ball having laid open the femoral artery, and it being impossible to stop the discharge of blood, he expired in the afternoon of the next day.

Mr. Graham was a gentleman of considerable eminence in his profession, and of an esteemed character in private life.

Mr. Julius is the son of a very respectable attorney at St. Kitt’s, and is said not to have been the least to blame in this quarrel.

BETWEEN MR. FRIZELL AND MR. CLARK.
June, 1792.

A duel was yesterday morning fought in Hyde Park, between Mr. Frizell and Mr. Clark, both students of the law. Mr. Montgomery was second to Mr. Frizell, and Mr. Evans to Mr. Clark.

On Thursday night, these four gentlemen were in company at the Cecil-street Coffeehouse, where Mr. Frizell lodged. They drank till one in the morning, when Mr. Frizell declaring he could drink no longer, Mr. Clark said, with some warmth,—it was using his friends very ill, but that it was not the first time he had behaved so; for that at Chatham he had quarrelled with all the officers, and particularly with his friend Lieutenant Hixon, of the 14th Regiment, and that he had the character of a fighting man. Mr. Frizell replied,—that he did not mean to give offence; but if anything that he had said, could be so construed, he was ready to give Mr. Clark satisfaction,—and then went to bed.

Mr. Clark insisted, that these words were a direct challenge, and appealed to the other gentlemen, who declared that they did not consider them in that light. Mr. Clark, however, went up to Mr. Frizell’s room, and insisted on his meeting him in five minutes. Mr. Frizell immediately dressed himself, and went down stairs, where he said, before all the parties, that if Mr. Evans and Mr. Montgomery were of opinion that he had been guilty of any improper conduct, he would apologize for it to Mr. Clark. But that gentleman said he would accept of no apology, and insisted that he should meet him in Hyde Park in an hour from the time,—three o’clock.

It was then settled that Mr. Evans and Mr. Montgomery should be the seconds. And after these gentlemen had in vain endeavoured to make up the difference, Mr. Clark, accompanied by Mr. Evans, went out for pistols. Mr. Clark procured a brace, which he loaded, and observing that Mr. Frizell had not got pistols, gave him one of his.

When they got to the ground, they stood at the distance of ten yards, and tossed up for the first fire, which was won by Mr. Clark, whose ball penetrated Mr. Frizell’s collar-bone. He fell, and as he was falling, his pistol went off. Mr. Montgomery, not supposing him dead, ran for a coach, to convey him to a surgeon’s; but on his return found Mr. Frizell had expired. Mr. Clark and Mr. Evans were standing by the body, and were surrounded by some soldiers, who refused to let them go until their sergeant came to them. The sergeant (who had previously been to Knightsbridge barracks, to consult his officer, Captain Hill, what was to be done) presently appeared, and set them at liberty; when the body was put into a coach, into which they all got, and drove off. In Piccadilly, Mr. Clark and Mr. Evans got out, and have not since been heard of.

Mr. Frizell and Mr. Clark were natives of Ireland, as were the two seconds. They were all young men. The coroner’s inquest has since sat on the body of Mr. Frizell, and brought in their verdict, “wilful murder.”

BETWEEN MR. KEMBLE AND MR. AIKIN.
March, 1792.

Contrary to dramatic custom, a duel was fought in a field near Marylebone, between Mr. Kemble and Mr. Aikin, of Drury-lane Theatre, in consequence of a dispute respecting certain dramatical arrangements which Mr. Aikin conceived to be injurious to him.

Mr. Aikin discharged his pistol without effect, and the parties were happily reconciled without proceeding further. They had no seconds; but Mr. Bannister, sen., attended as their common friend, a circumstance that clearly showed how little comedians are acquainted with the punctilios of honour.

BETWEEN THE EARL OF LONSDALE AND CAPTAIN CUTHBERT, OF THE GUARDS.
June 9, 1792.

An affair of honour took place early this morning, between the Earl of Lonsdale, and Captain Cuthbert of the Guards, which, after the discharge of a brace of pistols on each side, terminated without injury to either party. Lord Lonsdale’s last shot would probably have been fatal if the ball had not luckily struck a button of Captain Cuthbert, which repelled it. The seconds then interfered, and matters were amicably adjusted. The circumstances which led to this hazardous decision were as follows:—

Captain Cuthbert, in order to obviate all increasing disturbance in Mount-street, had directed that no carriage should be suffered to pass that way. Lord Lonsdale, who came in his carriage to Mount-street, was consequently obstructed; and finding the impediment insuperable, his temper was somewhat ruffled. Addressing himself, therefore, to Captain Cuthbert, he exclaimed, “You rascal, do you know that I am a peer of the realm?” The Captain immediately replied, “I don’t know that you are a peer; but I know you are a scoundrel, for applying such a term to an officer on duty; and I will make you answer for it.” A meeting, of course, took place, and concluded as stated.

BETWEEN LORD LAUDERDALE AND GENERAL ARNOLD.
July 2, 1792.

Lord Lauderdale attended by the Right Hon. Charles James Fox, and General Arnold with Lord Hawke as his friend, had a meeting near Kilburn Wells, to terminate a misunderstanding which it was found impossible to conciliate.

Lord Lauderdale received the General’s fire unhurt, when, his Lordship declining to return the shot, the seconds retired for about ten minutes, and the result was the finishing of the affair. The noble Earl, upon being desired to fire, observed that he did not come there to fire at the General, nor could he retract the offensive expressions; if General Arnold was not satisfied, he might fire till he was. A like rencontre took place a few days before between the noble Earl and the Duke of Richmond.

BETWEEN MONS. CHAUVIGNY AND MONS. C. LAMETH.
November 8, 1792.

This affair, which originated in a difference of opinion, had been undecided for two years. It appears that M. de Chauvigny, having learned the arrival of his antagonist in this country, gave him a meeting, and proposed to fight him, which the latter assented to. The parties fought in a field near the place of Mons. Lameth’s residence, and he was dangerously wounded in the belly. The affair ended by both declaring themselves satisfied, and giving their word of honour that the matter was finally adjusted.

The seconds were, for Mons. Chauvigny, the Duke de Pienne and the Count de Chabanc; and for Mons. Lameth, the Duke d’Aiguillon and Mr. Maselet.

BETWEEN MR. PUREFOY AND COLONEL ROPER.
Maidstone, August 14, 1794.

At these assizes this day, Mr. Thomas Purefoy was indicted for the “wilful murder” of Colonel Roper in a duel, which took place on the 21st of December, 1788. The interval which had occurred between that time and the prosecution, was not assignable to the prosecutor, as Mr. Purefoy had, for the greater part of the time, been out of the kingdom.

In 1787, Major Roper was commander-in-chief of the island of St. Vincent, and Mr. Purefoy was Ensign in the 66th Regiment. The latter having obtained leave of absence, had a festive day with some of the junior officers, in which they committed such excesses as occasioned a complaint to Major Roper, by whom the leave of absence was recalled. The remonstrances of Mr. Purefoy were made in such a style, as to induce Major Roper to bring him to a court-martial. By their verdict he was declared to have forfeited his commission; and this verdict was afterwards confirmed by his Majesty. This was the origin of the dispute, which had afterwards such a fatal termination.

The evidence, particularly that of General Stanwix, the second to Colonel Roper, was extremely favourable to the prisoner; who being called upon for his defence, said, that he had entertained no malice against the deceased; he had been led by a call of honour, or, more properly speaking, driven by the tyranny of custom, to an act, which in early life had embittered his existence; but without which, he was taught to believe that he should lose all the consideration which society could afford. The last challenge, he observed, had come from Colonel Roper; and, as some expiation of his offence, he had already suffered six years of exile, and nine months of close confinement. The latter part of this address was read from a written paper, by Mr. Erskine, the feelings of Mr. Purefoy being such as to overpower his utterance.

The prisoner called nine gentlemen to his character, most of whom had known him from early life. They all spoke to the general mildness of his character, and the good-humoured ease and aversion to quarrel which marked his general deportment. After a charge by the Judge, Mr. Baron Hotham, the jury, without hesitation, returned their verdict “not guilty.”

BETWEEN MAJOR SWEETMAN AND CAPTAIN WATSON.
January 12, 1796.

In consequence of a dispute at the Opera House, on Saturday evening, between Major Sweetman, of the Independents, and Captain Watson, of the 90th Regiment; these gentlemen, attended by their seconds and surgeons, met near Cobham.

The combatants were posted by the seconds at the distance of ten yards; but Major Sweetman, who was short-sighted, complaining that he could not see clearly, Captain Watson called out to him to advance till he was satisfied: he advanced to within four yards, when both parties fired together. Captain Watson’s ball went in at Major Sweetman’s right breast and came out at his left; he fell, and instantly expired. Captain Watson was wounded in the upper part of the thigh, but is in a fair way of recovery, the ball having been extracted.

March 20, 1796.

This day came on at Kingston assizes, the trial of Captain Brereton Watson, for the “murder” of Major Sweetman in a duel, which took place in January, at Cobham.

Captain Watson, still very ill of his wounds, was carried on a sofa covered with black into court. The surgeons refusing to be examined, through fear of being implicated in the crime with which the prisoner was charged, the trial was very short; and the result was, that Captain Watson was acquitted.

BETWEEN MR. RICHARD ENGLAND AND MR. ROWLLS.
February 19, 1796.

Mr. Richard England was put to the bar at the Old Bailey, charged with the “wilful murder” of Mr. Rowlls, brewer, of Kingston, in a duel at Cranford-bridge, June 18, 1784.

Lord Derby, the first witness, gave in evidence that he was present at Ascot races. When in the stand upon the race-course, he heard Mr. England cautioning the gentlemen present not to bet with the deceased, as he neither paid what he lost nor what he borrowed. On which Mr. Rowlls went up to him, called him rascal, or scoundrel, and offered to strike him; when Mr. England bid him stand off, or he would be obliged to knock him down; saying, at the same time, “We have interrupted the company sufficiently here, and if you have anything further to say to me, you know where I am to be found.” A further altercation ensued; but his Lordship being at the other end of the stand, did not distinctly hear it, and then the parties retired. Lord Dartrey, now Lord Cremorne, and his lady, with a gentleman, were at the inn at the time the duel was fought. They went into the garden and endeavoured to prevent the duel; several other persons were collected in the garden. Mr. Rowlls desired his Lordship and others not to interfere; and on a second attempt of his Lordship to make peace, Mr. Rowlls said, if they did not retire, he must, though reluctantly, call them impertinent. Mr. England at the same time stepped forward, and took off his hat; he said, “Gentlemen, I have been cruelly treated; I have been injured in my honour and character; let reparation be made, and I am ready to have done this moment.” Lady Dartrey retired. His Lordship stood in the bower of the garden until he saw Mr. Rowlls fall. One or two witnesses were called, who proved nothing material.

A paper, containing the prisoner’s defence, being read, the Earl of Derby, Marquis of Hertford, Mr. Whitbread, jun., Colonel Bishopp, and other gentlemen, were called to his character. They all spoke of him as a man of decent gentlemanly deportment, who, instead of seeking quarrels, was studious to avoid them. He had been friendly to Englishmen while abroad, and had rendered some service to the military at the siege of Newport.

Mr. Justice Rooke summed up the evidence; after which the jury retired for about three quarters of an hour, when they returned a verdict of “manslaughter.”

The prisoner having fled from the laws of his country for twelve years, the Court was disposed to show no lenity. He was therefore sentenced to pay a fine of one shilling, and to be imprisoned in Newgate twelve months.

BETWEEN LORD MALDEN AND THE DUKE OF NORFOLK.
April 30, 1796.

In consequence of a publication, addressed by Lord Malden to the inhabitants of the borough of Leominster, the Duke of Norfolk, accompanied by Captain Wombwell, of the 1st West York regiment of Militia, and Lord Malden, accompanied by Captain Taylor, Aid-de-camp to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, met on Saturday morning, in a field beyond Paddington.

The parties having taken their ground, and the word being given by one of the seconds, they fired without effect. The seconds then thought proper to offer their interference; and in consequence of a conversation which passed while the parties were on the ground, a reconciliation was effected.

BETWEEN LORD VALENTIA AND HENRY GAWLER, ESQ.
June 28, 1796.

A duel was fought in a field within three miles of Hamburgh, between Lord Valentia and Henry Gawler, Esq. They left England with their seconds and surgeons, for the express purpose of fighting. They fired together. Mr. Gawler’s ball took place; it entered his Lordship’s breast bone, and lodged near the neck. It was extracted on the field; and he is considered to be out of danger. Lord Valentia’s ball passed through Mr. Gawler’s hat.

The affair between Mr. Gawler and Lady Valentia was the subject of the dispute.

BETWEEN MR. WM. CARPENTER AND MR. JOHN PRIDE.
Aug. 20, 1796.

This morning a duel was fought in Hyde Park, between Mr. William Carpenter and Mr. John Pride, both Americans, in which Mr. Carpenter received his antagonist’s ball in the side, which penetrated nearly through his body; and, notwithstanding it was immediately extracted, he died soon after.

The coroner’s jury afterwards sat upon the body, and brought in their verdict “wilful murder.”

BETWEEN LIEUT. FITZGERALD AND LIEUT. WARRINGTON.
May 4, 1797.

In consequence of a quarrel which happened in the theatre at Plymouth, on the Friday evening preceding, between Lieutenant Fitzgerald, of the Marines, and Lieutenant Warrington, of the 25th Regiment, they met, accompanied by their seconds, to settle the business. They exchanged shots without effect; but on the second fire Lieutenant Fitzgerald’s ball wounded Lieutenant Warrington in the side, after which the business terminated.

BETWEEN CAPT. SMITH AND LIEUT. FRANCIS BUCKLEY.
August 5, 1797.

Killed in a duel with Captain Smith, of the same regiment, Lieutenant Francis Buckley, of the Loyal British Fencibles, in the island of Jersey.

After exchanging several shots, the deceased received his antagonist’s ball in his right side, and died almost instantly.

The cause of this unfortunate affair is said to have arisen from a quarrel between Capt. Smith and the deceased; in which the former received a blow from the latter, who imagined that very improper language had been made use of towards him.

He has left a wife and two infant children, a brother (a lieutenant in the same regiment), and aged parents, to lament his untimely fate.

BETWEEN COLONEL KING AND COLONEL FITZGERALD.
October, 1797.

About four weeks before, the Hon. Miss King, who lived with her mother, Lady Kingsborough, eloped from Windsor. There were many circumstances attending the elopement which led to a suspicion of the person who had seduced her from her duty.

Colonel Fitzgerald, who is married to a very beautiful lady, and is second cousin to Miss King, had been very attentive to her for some time; and, it appears, had previously found means to lead her astray. She was very young, being now only sixteen years of age; and her habits of life had been such as to leave her more uninformed of the vicious habits of the world than happens to most young people, even at that early age.

Colonel Fitzgerald was at length attacked by her friends as being accessory to her elopement. But he was at first extremely indignant, and threatened to fight any person who should accuse him. The afflicted parent, by the advice of friends, had at length recourse to the newspapers; and after having repeatedly advertised in vain for her daughter, was induced to offer a reward of a hundred guineas for her recovery. It was in consequence of the reward offered, that a young woman, daughter of the mistress of the house where the young lady was concealed, in Clayton-street, Kennington, discovered Miss King and her seducer.

As soon as Lord Kingsborough, who was in Ireland, heard of the fate of his daughter, he came to England with his son, Colonel King; and the first step was to find out Colonel Fitzgerald, which was not done without some difficulty, as they were determined to call him to a personal and severe account.

Lord Kingsborough wrote to his friend, Major Wood, at Ashford, requesting his immediate attendance in town. As soon as he arrived a meeting was appointed, and a duel took place, of which the following particulars are given by Major Wood to a friend:—

“Fladong’s Hotel, Oxford-street, October 1, 1797.

“My dear Friend,

“I shall, without preface, enter at once into the affair, which I mentioned to you was to take place this morning, and ‘nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.’

“Agreeably to an arranged plan, I accompanied Colonel King to a spot near the Magazine in the Park. Colonel Fitzgerald we met at Grosvenor-gate, unaccompanied by a friend, which, by the way, he told me yesterday he feared he should not be able to provide, in consequence of the odium which was thrown upon his character; at the same time observing, ‘That he was so sensible of my honour, that he was perfectly satisfied to meet Colonel King unattended by a friend.’ I decidedly refused any interference on his part, informing him ‘That had not nearer relations of the —— been on the spot, he would have seen me as a principal.’ He replied, ‘He would try to procure a friend,’ and withdrew. I addressed him this morning by ‘Where is your friend, Sir?’ Answer (as well as I recollect), ‘I have not been able to procure one; I rest assured that you will act fairly.’ I then desired him to apply to his surgeon, which he immediately did, who refused appearing as a second, but said he would be in view. Colonel King was equally desirous to go on with the business. I consented. However, I prevailed upon a surgeon, who accompanied Dr. Browne, to be present as a witness that all was fairly conducted. It was no common business. I placed them at ten short paces’ distance from each other. That distance I thought too far. But I indulged a hope that Colonel Fitzgerald, sensible of the vileness of his conduct, would, after the first fire, have thrown himself on Colonel King’s humanity. His conduct was quite the reverse. In short, they exchanged six shots without effect. King was cool and determined. The other also was determined; and, to appearance, obstinately bent on blood. After the fourth shot he said something to me about giving him advice as a friend. I told him I was no friend of his, but that I was a friend to humanity, that, if after what had passed, he possessed firmness enough to acknowledge to Colonel King that he was the vilest of human beings, and bear without reply any language from Colonel King, however harsh, the present business, then, perhaps, might come to a period. He consented to acknowledge that he had acted wrongly, but no farther. That was not enough. He now attempted to address Colonel King, who prevented him by saying,—that he was a d—d villain, and that he would not listen to anything he had to say.

“They proceeded. Colonel Fitzgerald’s powder and balls were now expended. He desired to have one of King’s pistols. To this I would not consent, though pressed to do so by my friends. Here ended this morning’s business. We must meet again. It cannot end here. I have only to add, that nothing could exceed the firmness and propriety of Colonel King’s conduct, through every stage of this business.

“I am, my dear friend, very truly yours,

“Robert Wood.

“P.S.—On leaving the ground Colonel Fitzgerald agreed to meet Colonel King at the same hour to-morrow.

“Both the colonels, the same day, were put under arrest.”

December 12, 1797.

Yesterday, intelligence was received in town of the death of Colonel Fitzgerald, who was lately guilty of a most shameful and dishonourable act in the family of the present Earl of Kingston, by seducing a daughter of that much respected nobleman, to whom he was allied, and in whose family he had been a constant visitor. He met with his death in the following manner:—

After the discovery of this unfortunate criminal intercourse, which occurred in England, and in consequence of which a duel had taken place between the brother of the young lady (who is now Lord Kingsborough) and the deceased Colonel Fitzgerald, she was removed to the country residence of her noble father, now the Earl of Kingston, at Mitchelstown, near Kilworth, in this kingdom. The deceased, feeling no remorse for what he had done, in dishonouring by the most artful stratagems an illustrious family, had the audacity and hardihood to follow the young lady to Ireland; it is supposed, with a view to wrest her by violence from her parents; and for this purpose, took lodgings at an inn in Kilworth.

The Colonel had been there some days before his arrival at Kilworth was known, or the object of his expedition was discovered. He was observed to walk out in the night, and conceal himself in the day, and the servants at length noticed him lurking about Mitchelstown House at unseasonable hours. Intelligence having reached Lord Kingsborough, who had had the duel with the Colonel, and resolved to defeat his antagonist’s project, he left his father’s house, and went to Kilworth, where, having inquired if that gentleman was in the house, and being informed he was, he went to the apartment he was directed to, which the colonel lodged in. Lord Kingsborough rapped at the door, requiring admittance. The Colonel, knowing his voice, replied, that he was locked in, and could not open the door; but if he had anything to say to him, he would receive it in writing under the door. This enraged the young nobleman, and he forced open the door, and running to a case of pistols in the room, took one, and desired the Colonel to take the other, and defend himself, as he was resolved to have satisfaction for the scheme the deceased had formed against his sister, and which he came to this place to put into execution. On both seizing the pistols, they grappled with each other, and were struggling when the Earl of Kingston, who had been apprised of his son’s departure in pursuit of the Colonel, and quickly followed the young lord, entered the room; and finding them in the contest, and that his son must lose his life, from the situation the deceased had him in, the Earl fired upon the Colonel, not, we believe, with an intention to kill him, though his aggravation was great. The shot, however, took effect, and the Colonel lost his life, but not lamented by any one who has heard of his very dishonourable conduct in this affair.

When Miss King was taken by her father from England, on account of her disgrace, it was discovered, on her arrival in Dublin, that the servant-maid, who accompanied her, favoured the views of the seducer. On her consequent dismissal from the service she returned to England, and was the bearer of a private letter to Colonel Fitzgerald, the contents of which were, it is said, sufficient to induce the Colonel, even at the risk of his life, to make an effort to regain the young lady. But his finances not enabling him to undertake the journey, he borrowed a sum of money of an amiable woman, who ought to have been most dear to him, under the pretence of making a visit to Dorsetshire. Thus accommodated, he set out for the sister kingdom, and arrived at the village of Kilworth, near Mitchelstown, the residence of the noble family, and the place where the young lady was then kept, whose conduct was then watched with particular vigilance.

BETWEEN THE RIGHT HON. W. PITT AND G. TIERNEY, ESQ.
May 21, 1798.

In consequence of some expressions made use of by Mr. Pitt in the House of Commons on the Friday previous, Mr. Pitt, accompanied by Mr. Rider, and Mr. Tierney, accompanied by Mr. George Walpole, met at three o’clock in the afternoon on Putney Heath.

After some ineffectual attempts on the part of the seconds to prevent farther proceedings, the parties took their ground at the distance of twelve paces. A case of pistols was fired at the same moment without effect. A second case was also fired in the same manner. Mr. Pitt having fired his pistol in the air, the seconds jointly interfered, and insisted that the matter should go no farther, it being their decided opinion that sufficient satisfaction had been given, and that the business was ended with perfect honour to both parties.

BETWEEN COL. HARVEY ASTON AND MAJOR ALLEN.
December 23, 1798.

Died, at Madras, in consequence of a wound which he received in a duel with Major Allen, of which he languished about a week, Colonel Harvey Aston.

He had been engaged in a similar affair of honour, and on the same account, with Major Picton only the day preceding that on which he met Major Allen; but which was fortunately terminated by each party firing in the air, and a proper explanation taking place as to the offence.

BETWEEN MESSRS. COOLAN AND MORCAN.
Dublin, March 13, 1800.

This morning two students of our University, Messrs. Coolan and Morcan, in consequence of an unhappy dispute the preceding evening, met in the fields near Harcourt-street. They fired at the same moment, when Mr. Coolan’s shot unfortunately took place in the temple of his antagonist, and killed him on the spot. The surviving combatant has been expelled the college, and the two seconds have been rusticated.

BETWEEN J. CORRY, ESQ. AND —— NEWBURGH, ESQ.
May 10, 1800.

Yesterday a meeting took place on Drumcondra-road, between James Corry, Esq., of Lurgan-street, and —— Newburgh, Esq., in consequence of a dispute, and, as alleged, the provocation of a blow given by the latter to the former. The latter gentleman was accompanied on the ground by Captain Warring of the 24th Dragoons, as his second; the other by Mr. Weir, one of the attorneys.

Having taken their ground, the signal was given to fire. Mr. Corry’s pistol went off without effect, Mr. Newburgh’s missed fire. He was preparing to fire it afterwards, when his second called to him, telling him, the snap in duelling was considered as a fire. Both gentlemen were then provided with other pistols, and received the signal to fire again, which they did, and Mr. Newburgh was shot through the heart and expired.

Mr. Newburgh was the only son of Broghill Newburgh, of the county of Cavan, Esq. of an ancient family, and heir-apparent to an estate of 5000l. per annum.

Mr. Corry is an élève of the Speaker of the House of Commons, by whom he was placed in the lucrative situation of clerk to the Linen Board; a place which was enjoyed by his father, who was also a great favourite with Mr. Foster.

The deceased was upwards of thirty years of age, and married to the daughter of Mr. Camac, an East India gentleman, with a fortune of 30,000l. He was related to Lord Enniskillen, Lord Erne, Lord Gosford, and some other of the best families in Ireland.

Mr. Corry, who is some years younger, is a young gentleman of amiable and inoffensive manners.

BETWEEN MR. P. HAMILTON AND MR. G. I. EAKER.
January, 1802.

A duel took place at New York, between Mr. P. Hamilton, son of General Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. G. I. Eaker; in which, at the first fire, Mr. Hamilton was shot through the body. He languished until the next day, when he died.

BETWEEN WM. HUNTER, ESQ. AND MR. DAVID MITCHELL.
August, 1802.

At Savannah, William Hunter, Esq., fell in a duel with Mr. David Mitchell. The dispute had its origin in July last, in the county court, to the jury of which Mr. Hunter was foreman, in a cause in which Mitchell was counsel. During the trial, it appearing to Mr. Hunter that the examination of the evidence was not conducted by the counsel with that impartiality which justice required, he addressed a few words to the court, when Mitchell got up and observed, that Mr. Hunter was very officious on the occasion. Mr. Hunter replied, that the officiousness of jurymen was not to be compared with the impertinence of some attorneys.

There the matter rested till August 9th, when Mitchell attacked Mr. Hunter in the street with a large bludgeon. Mr. Hunter, having nothing to defend himself with, after receiving four blows and attempting unsuccessfully, at the same time, to seize Mitchell by the collar, said, “Mr. Mitchell, I am unarmed; I must retreat unless you lay aside your weapon.” Mr. Hunter then retreated to Dr. Kollock’s for a cane, but could not procure one. By this time some of the inhabitants interfered. The same evening Mr. Hunter sent Mr. Mitchell a challenge, who, after much equivocation, accepted it. Dr. Kollock was Mr. Hunter’s second, Major B. Maxwell was second to Mitchell. Mr. Hunter fired first, and hit Mitchell on the hip; Mitchell missed Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter’s second fire hit Mitchell on the groin also, without penetrating the skin; but Mr. Hunter received Mitchell’s second ball in his right breast. Mr. Hunter immediately turned, and exclaimed, “I am a dead man;” and as Drs. Glenn and Kollock caught him in their arms he asked for a glass of wine and expired.

BETWEEN LIEUT. W——, R.N., AND CAPT. I——, OF THE ARMY.
March, 1803.

This morning a most extraordinary duel took place in Hyde Park, between Lieutenant W——, of the navy, and Captain I——, of the army.

The antagonists arrived at the appointed place within a few minutes of each other. Some dispute arose respecting the distance, which the friends of Lieutenant W—— insisted should not exceed six paces; while the seconds of Captain I—— urged strongly the rashness of so short a distance, and insisted on its being extended. At length the proposal of Lieutenant W——’s friends was agreed to, and the parties fired per signal; when Lieutenant W—— received the shot of his adversary on the guard of his pistol, which tore away the third and fourth fingers of his right hand. The seconds then interfered to no purpose. The son of Neptune, apparently callous to pain, wrapped his handkerchief round his hand, and swore he had another, which never failed him. Captain I—— called his friend aside, and told him it was in vain to urge a reconciliation. They again took their ground. On Lieutenant W—— receiving the pistol in his left hand, he looked steadfastly at Captain I—— for some time, then cast his eyes to heaven, and said, “Forgive me.” The parties fired as before, and both fell. Captain I—— received the shot through his head, and instantly expired. Lieutenant W—— received the ball in his left breast, and immediately inquired of his friend if Captain I——’s wound was mortal? Being answered in the affirmative, he thanked Heaven he had lived thus long. He requested that a mourning ring, which was on his finger, might be given to his sister; and that she might be assured it was the happiest moment he ever knew. He had scarcely finished the word when a quantity of blood burst from his wound, and he expired almost without a struggle.

The unfortunate young man was on the eve of being married to a lady in Hampshire, to whom for some time he had paid his addresses.

BETWEEN LIEUT.-COLONEL MONTGOMERY AND CAPTAIN MACNAMARA.
April 6, 1803.

As Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery and Captain Macnamara were riding in Hyde Park, each followed by a Newfoundland dog, the dogs fought; and Colonel Montgomery, who did not see that Captain Macnamara was near, after separating the animals, exclaimed, “Whose dog is that? I will knock him down!” To which Captain Macnamara replied, “Have you the impudence to say that you will knock my dog down? You must first knock me down.” An altercation ensued, an exchange of cards followed, and an appointment to meet at 7 o’clock in the evening, near Primrose Hill; the consequence of which proved fatal. Captain Macnamara’s ball entered the right side of Colonel Montgomery’s chest, and taking a direction to the left, most probably went through the heart; he instantly fell, without uttering a word, but rolled over two or three times as if in great agony, and groaned. Colonel Montgomery’s ball went through Captain Macnamara, entering on the right side, just above the hip, and passing through the left side, carrying part of the coat and waistcoat in with it, taking part of his leather breeches, and the hip button, away with it on the other side.

Colonel Montgomery was carried by some of the persons standing by, into Chalk Farm, where he was laid on a bed, attended by Mr. Heaviside. As they were carrying him, he attempted to speak and spit; but the blood choked him. His mouth foamed much; and in about five minutes after he was brought into the house, he expired with a gentle sigh.

Captain Macnamara was a naval officer, who has much distinguished himself in two or three actions, as commander of the Cerberus frigate. He had lately returned from the West Indies; and his ship was, about two months ago, paid off at Chatham. He was about thirty-six years of age; a strong, bold, active man. He had fought two or three duels before; and was remarkable at Cork, for keeping the turbulent in awe.

Colonel Montgomery was Lieutenant-Colonel of the ninth regiment of foot, son of Sir Robert Montgomery, of Ireland, and half-brother of Mrs. George Byng, and the Marchioness Townshend. He was a remarkably handsome man, and he had, also, fought bravely in the service of his country. In the Dutch expedition, the Russians being put to flight, his regiment was thrown into confusion, and retreated, in consequence of the Russians falling back upon them. At this time a drummer was killed, and Colonel Montgomery took up the drum, beating it to rally his men, he himself standing alone. He succeeded in rallying them, and at their head rendered essential service. On several occasions, in Egypt and Malta also, he had distinguished himself by his courage and spirit. He was very intimate with the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York. The former shed tears on being apprised of the melancholy end of his friend.

Colonel Montgomery was well known in London by the sobriquet of the Duke of Hamilton’s double, from his studiously copying that nobleman’s style of dress.

Captain Macnamara recovered of his wound, and was tried for murder. His defence, which was prepared by Lord Erskine (then Mr. Erskine), stated:—“I am a captain of the British navy. My character you can hear only from others. But to maintain my character in that situation I must be respected. When called upon to lead others into honourable danger, I must not be supposed to be a man who sought safety by submitting to what custom has taught others to consider as a disgrace. I am not presuming to urge anything against the law of God, or of this land. I know, that in the eyes of duty and reason, obedience to the law, though against the feelings of the world, is the first duty, and ought to be the rule of action; but upon putting a construction upon my motives, so as to ascertain the quality of my actions, you will make allowance for my situation. It is impossible to define in terms the proper feelings of a gentleman; but their existence has supported this country for many ages, and she might perish if they were lost.”

April 15.

Yesterday morning Mr. Heaviside, the surgeon, was arrested by Townsend, under authority of a warrant from Sir Richard Ford, wherein he stands charged with having been aiding and assisting in the murder of Colonel Montgomery; and, after undergoing a private examination before the above magistrate, at Bow Street, he was fully committed to Newgate for trial, at the ensuing Old Bailey Sessions. Several witnesses were also privately examined respecting the duel, and bound over to appear on the trial.

Captain Macnamara was yesterday declared out of danger, but was not yet well enough to be removed.

The coroner’s inquest, on taking a view of the body of Colonel Montgomery, brought in a verdict of “manslaughter.” The remains were buried in a vault in St. James’s Church.

The evidence being closed, the prisoner addressed the jury in mitigation of his conduct.

Lords Hood, Nelson, Hotham, and Minto, and a great number of highly respectable gentlemen gave Captain Macnamara a most excellent character. Mr. Justice Heath summed up the evidence, and stated, that, from the pressure of the evidence, and the prisoner’s own admission, the jury must find a verdict of “manslaughter.” They were, however, of a different opinion; for, after retiring a quarter of an hour, they pronounced a verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN LORD CAMELFORD AND CAPTAIN BEST.
March, 1804.

A duel has been fought between Lord Camelford and Captain Best, of the Royal Navy, in the fields behind Holland House, near Kensington.

The meeting is said to have taken place in consequence of a quarrel between the parties, who were intimate friends, on the preceding evening, at the Prince of Wales’s Coffee-house.

Lord Camelford and Mr. Best had been intimate friends; both were young men of fashion, and esteemed first-rate shots. The subject of their quarrel was an abandoned woman, of the name of Symons, who had formerly lived with Mr. Best, but was then under the protection of Lord Camelford. This woman meeting Mr. Best at the Opera, made of him a request inconsistent with their relative positions; and on being refused, declared she would set Lord Camelford upon him; and accordingly complained to his Lordship, that Mr. Best had spoken disrespectfully of him. This greatly incensed Lord Camelford; and at the Prince of Wales’s Hotel, where they generally dined, he went up to Mr. Best, and said, loud enough to be heard by all present, “I find that you have spoken of me in the most unwarrantable terms.” Mr. Best mildly replied, that he was utterly unconscious of deserving such a charge; to which Lord Camelford answered, that he was not ignorant of what he had said of him to Mrs. Symons, and pronounced him to be a scoundrel, a liar, and a ruffian. Mr. Best said, that these were expressions which admitted but of one course, and a meeting was immediately arranged for the next morning.

In the course of the evening Mr. Best conveyed to Lord Camelford the strongest assurance that the information he had received was unfounded; and believing that his Lordship was acting under a wrong impression, he would be satisfied if the expressions he had made use of were retracted. This Lord Camelford refused to do. Attended by their respective friends, they met the following morning at a coffee-house in Oxford Street; and there again Mr. Best made an effort to obtain a retractation of the insulting words. He went up to his Lordship, and said, “Camelford, we have been friends, and I know the unsuspecting generosity of your nature; upon my honour, you have been imposed upon by a strumpet. Do not persist in expressions under which one of us must fall.” Lord Camelford answered, “Best, this is child’s play; the affair must go on.”

And yet at this moment Lord Camelford had in his heart acquitted Mr. Best, and had confidently stated to his second, that he knew he was in the wrong; that Best was a man of honour; but that he could not bring himself to retract words which he had once used. In going to the ground, he reiterated this statement to his second, adding, that as he and Mr. Best were considered the two best shots in England, one of them must fall; but, whatever was the issue of the affair, he begged him to bear testimony that he acquitted Mr. Best of all blame. No remonstrance, however, could induce him to withdraw the offensive expression.

They were placed at fifteen paces from each other. They fired together, and Lord Camelford fell, to all appearance dead. In an instant, however, he recovered the shock, so far as to exclaim, “I am killed! but I acquit Best. I alone am to blame.” He begged them to consult their safety. When a labourer, who was working in an adjoining garden, repaired to the spot, he found Lord Camelford lying on his back, in the lower part of the field, which was overflowed, to the depth of several inches in water. Captain Best and his friend had rode off directly after the shot took effect, and the other gentleman followed their example, immediately on the countryman’s coming up, on the pretence of going for a surgeon.

His Lordship was unwilling to be removed, and it was with difficulty that those who came to his assistance got him placed in a chair, and conveyed to Mr. Ottey’s, at Little Holland House. His adversary’s ball had penetrated his right breast, and was supposed to have passed through the lungs and lodged in the back bone. When questioned as to the names of the other gentlemen who had accompanied him, he declined giving any satisfaction on the subject.

Lord Camelford, by his will, peremptorily forbad his relatives and friends from prosecuting his antagonist, declaring that the combat was of his own seeking. The day previous to his death he added a codicil to his will, in which, after stating that persons have in general a strong attachment to the country which gave them birth, and on their death-beds usually desire that their remains may be conveyed to their native land, however great the distance, to be interred, he continued:—“I wish my body to be removed, as soon as may be convenient, to a country far distant, to a spot not near the haunts of men, but where the surrounding scenery may smile upon my remains.” The place he chose was situated on the borders of the Lake of St. Lampierre, in the canton of Berne, and three trees stood on the particular spot. The centre tree he desired might be taken up, and his body being there deposited, immediately replaced. “Let no monument or stone be placed over my grave.” At the foot of this tree, his Lordship added, he formerly passed many solitary hours, contemplating the mutability of human affairs. As a compensation to the proprietors of the spot, he left them one thousand pounds. He also requested his relations not to go into mourning for him. At the period of the duel Lord Camelford and Mr. Best had a bet of two hundred pounds depending, as to which of them was the better shot.

The following account of this pest to society is given by one of his biographers; but we must hope, for the sake of mankind, that the intellects of this desperate nobleman were occasionally deranged:—

“His character was a curious mixture of much that was virtuous and much that was vicious: all in extremes. With chivalrous notions of punctilious honour, and with an irascible temper, which brought him into many broils, he was warm in his affections, and almost unexampled in his benevolence. Disdaining all luxuries, in his own manner of life, he sought for opportunities of dispensing his fortune in acts of genuine charity, and conferred the most liberal favours with a secrecy that ennobled the gift. He did not distribute less than four thousand pounds per annum in the purchase of commissions for gallant young men, who had not the means of buying them, and in the relief of decayed seamen and soldiers. If many of his political proceedings were characterised with imprudence, no one could doubt they sprang from patriotism. He was a man whose real character was to the world but little known; his imperfections and his follies were often brought before the public, but his counterbalancing virtues were seldom heard of. Though too violent to those whom he imagined to have wronged him, yet to his acquaintance he was gentle, affable, and courteous; a stern adversary, but the mildest and most generous of friends. He was often the dupe of the designing and crafty supplicant, but he was more often the soother of real sorrow and unmerited woe.”

That such might have been his private character is most decidedly to be hoped; but most unquestionably, his public character rendered him a nuisance to society, and whoever did rid the world of such a murderous and (in matters of blood) unprincipled ruffian, was entitled to public thanks. Priding himself on his superiority in pistol practice, he sought for quarrels on every possible occasion. His dress, more especially in uniform, was such as to excite remark and observation, which he would gladly seize upon to fight a duel. He was even known to treat his horses in the streets of London in the most cruel manner, for the mere purpose of drawing forth some remonstrance or remark which he could consider an insult, and justify a murder. He died as he had lived, a blood-thirsty monster. He sought to deprive a bosom friend of life, although he was conscious of the falsehood of his own assertions, solely because he wished to display his superiority as a shot, and endeavoured to sacrifice a companion whom he esteemed, for a miserable woman whom he despised. His previous conduct towards Paterson was not justifiable under any circumstances of discipline, since he had the means of bringing him to condign punishment without being his executioner.

He was attended in the course of the day by Mr. Heaviside, Mr. Thomson, and Mr. Horne, surgeons. A Mr. Nihell, or Nield, we understand, was second to Captain Best, and the Hon. Mr. Devereux was second to Lord Camelford.

The following is a further account of his death, as it appeared in one of the papers of the day:—

March 12.

On Saturday evening this unfortunate nobleman breathed his last. He sent for his solicitor, Mr. Wilson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and made his will the night after the accident; and maintained the most perfect composure under his sufferings to the last.

In the voluminous evidence adduced before the coroner’s inquest, it was proved, that Lord Camelford had declared,—that he was the aggressor, that he forgave the gentleman who had shot him, and that he hoped God would forgive him too.

Mr. Hodgson, the coroner, in his address to the jury, made the following observations:—

“It was evident the deceased had been killed by a shot fired at him by some person, of whose identity the jury had no direct or admissible proof. The laws of this country admitted of no excuse for one man killing another in a private duel. But, supposing the person who had slain the deceased to be able, before a superior tribunal, to offer circumstances and facts in palliation of his offence, they could not have any weight in this inquest. He had, strictly speaking, been guilty of murder, and to that effect must necessarily be the verdict of the jury. In the present case, there was no doubt of the deceased having been feloniously killed; but there was no evidence who was the principal, or who were the seconds. In point of fact, they were all equally guilty; for, in the crime of murder, accessories before the fact were considered as principals. There was hardly a doubt that the expressions and avowal of the deceased, so honourably made in favour of his opponent, would, if the latter were arraigned in a superior court, induce his acquittal; but that was a consideration which ought not to operate on the minds of those whom he was addressing. Had the parties been in a room; and upon a sudden quarrel had the deceased, having given the first provocation, been killed, it might have been justifiable homicide; but, on the contrary, it appeared, they had deliberately gone out to commit an unjustifiable act. Had it been proved who the person was who fired the shot at the deceased, the jury would have been bound to have returned a verdict of “murder” against him, and those who were aiding and abetting him; but, as the case stood, they would only pronounce the verdict to which he had alluded.

The jury unanimously returned a verdict of “wilful murder, or felonious homicide, by some person or persons unknown.”

BETWEEN ENSIGN BROWNE AND LIEUT. BUTLER.
January 1, 1806.

This morning a meeting took place in a piece of ground, in the parish of Basford, between Ensign Browne, of the 36th regiment of Foot, and Lieutenant Butler, of the 83d Regiment, on the recruiting service, at Nottingham.

The parties fired together by signal, when, unfortunately, Ensign Browne was shot through the heart, and instantly expired, without uttering a word.

Lieutenant Butler and the seconds immediately withdrew. The body of the deceased was taken to Basford church, by some persons who were attracted to the spot by the report of the pistols; and a verdict of “wilful murder” was returned by the coroner’s jury who sat upon it.

Ensign Browne was a promising young officer, of a very respectable family in Ireland, and had only just attained his seventeenth year. He and Lieutenant Butler belonged, lately, to the same regiment; but from a serious disagreement which took place between them, the Commander-in-chief ordered them to be placed in different corps. On their meeting at Nottingham, however, the embers of animosity rekindled, and the unhappy result has proved the loss to society of a valuable and much respected young member.

BETWEEN MAJOR BROOKES AND COLONEL BOLTON.
January 4, 1806.

About a year ago a duel was to have taken place at Liverpool, between Major Brookes and Colonel Bolton, in consequence of a quarrel; but the affair being known, they were bound over to keep the peace for one year. After this, the animosity between them increased daily, and each reproached the other with having informed the officers of justice of their intention to fight.

The time for which they were bound over to keep the peace elapsed on Friday week, when a challenge passed, and an immediate meeting was determined upon. They met, and at the first fire Major Brookes was killed on the spot. The Colonel absconded.

BETWEEN LIEUT. TURRENS AND MR. FISHER.
March 22, 1806.

A duel was fought on Galleywood Common, near Chelmsford, Essex, between Lieutenant Turrens and Mr. Fisher, both of the 6th regiment of Foot, in barracks there. The parties with their seconds arrived on the spot appointed for the encounter at daybreak, when the preliminaries having been settled, they took a short distance, and turning round, fired at the same instant. The Lieutenant received his antagonist’s ball in the groin, and immediately fell. On which Mr. Fisher went up and took him by the hand, expressing much regret at the lamentable consequence that had ensued, as, from the nature of the wound, he was apprehensive it would prove mortal.

Assistance having been procured, the wounded gentleman was removed to a windmill at a short distance, and as soon as possible, conveyed from thence to his apartments in the barracks, where every attention was rendered that his unfortunate situation could require. The ball having lodged on the side opposite to which it entered, was extracted by Dr. Welch, at four o’clock the same afternoon, but he expired between nine and ten o’clock on Sunday morning. An inquisition was taken by J. O. Parker, jun., Esq., coroner, on view of the body, on Monday, and a verdict returned of “wilful murder” against Mr. Fisher and the two seconds, one of whom is under arrest. Mr. Fisher and the other have absconded.

BETWEEN MR. ROGERS AND MR. LONG.
Dublin, May 3, 1806.

This day a duel was fought in Foster Avenue, between two young gentlemen of the Barrack-office, in this city, and intimate friends, upon occasion of a tavern quarrel the preceding evening.

On the first fire, at the distance of eleven paces, both parties fell; the one, Mr. Rogers, received a ball through his heart, and of course died instantly. The other, Mr. Long, was shot through both his thighs, and is also since dead.

BETWEEN BARON HOMPESCH AND MR. RICHARDSON.
Sept. 22, 1806.

A duel was fought this morning between Baron Hompesch and a Mr. Richardson, of Colchester, in consequence of the Baron, who is near-sighted, running against Mr. Richardson and two ladies in the street. On the exchange of the third pistol Mr. Richardson was shot through the body.

BETWEEN SIR FRANCIS BURDETT AND MR. PAULL.
May 5, 1807.

On account of a misunderstanding between Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Paull, a meeting took place at nine o’clock this morning, near Wimbledon Common. Mr. Paull conceiving his character very injuriously reflected upon by Sir Francis, despatched a challenge, late on Friday night, to the Baronet, which being accepted, the parties met early yesterday morning at Coombe Wood, near Wimbledon Common.

They discharged two pistols each. The second shot, fired by Mr. Paull, wounded Sir Francis in the thigh; the second pistol, fired by Sir Francis, wounded Mr. Paull in the leg. Sir Francis returned home in the same carriage with Mr. Paull.

---

The following is the truly amusing account given of this duel by Mr. Bellenden Ker, and shows the necessity of selecting proper seconds on such occasions:—

On Saturday morning. May 5, about half-past five o’clock, Sir Francis Burdett’s servant came to me with a note from Sir Francis, desiring me to come to him instantly to Wimbledon, with a pair of pistols, as he had been called upon; but did not say by whom. I could procure none, after trying at two officers of the Guards, and at Manton’s, but found none fit for the purpose. It occurring to me that going thus from place to place for pistols, might at last be the occasion of bringing on more notice than I wished, I determined to proceed without them, thinking that those who called upon him must have a pair at least; and that if it was necessary they might serve both parties. I arrived at Sir Francis Burdett’s house, at Wimbledon, about eight o’clock, having been obliged to wait more than two hours for a chaise. He was gone on to the King’s Arms, Kingston, having left a note for me to follow him there in his carriage. On entering Kingston, I saw Mr. Paull in a coach, accompanied by another person, and a servant on the coach seat. He called out to me on passing his carriage, and said something that I did not distinctly hear; but I think he advised me not to proceed into the town, as the affair would be blown. I asked him where the inn was, and went on.

As soon as I entered the room where Burdett was sitting, a person appeared, who had followed me. On his entrance I asked Burdett who he was. He said it was Paull’s second. I then said, “Whom have I the honour to address?” “My name is Cooper.” “Do you know him, Burdett?” “I have no doubt Mr. Paull has appointed a proper person to meet me.” “Sir, sir, sir,” was Mr. Cooper’s answer. I then said, as Burdett desired, that we should immediately follow them, if they proceeded to Coombe Wood, which seemed to be a proper place for meeting.

After Burdett had given me some letters and memorandums for different friends, and explained to me the subject of Mr. Paull’s demands, we proceeded to the place appointed; where, ordering the carriages to stop for us, we went into the wood to a considerable distance. I fixed on a proper spot. During our walk Mr. Paull frequently addressed me on the subject of the quarrel. He said he was sure I had not heard it rightly stated, and wished me much to hear him. I always replied that I had heard the whole from my principal, and that I placed implicit confidence in what he said; for if I could not have done that, I should not have accompanied him there; and that, from all I heard and read concerning the matter, it was my decided opinion that Burdett was the person most entitled to consider himself as ill-used; but that, at all events, an apology from him was out of all question, and that I would rather see him shot than advise him to so disgraceful an act. As Mr. Paull did not seem to have at all placed his opinions, or case, in the hands of his second, I found it in vain to talk to him on the subject of an accommodation. After we had stopped, I asked for the pistols, which were produced by Mr. Cooper, who declared that he had not expected things would have taken this turn. I asked him if he expected I should advise, or Burdett would consent to disgrace himself. I then told him we had been unable to obtain pistols, and expected he would consent, as well as Mr. Paull, that we should use one of theirs. To this they both agreed. He (Mr. Cooper) told me he did not know how to load them; I showed him how, and directed him to load Burdett’s while I loaded Mr. Paull’s. I then asked him what distance he proposed them to stand at; he said he knew nothing about the matter, and left it to me. I measured out twelve paces, and placed the principals at the extremities of the space. I then directed him to give Sir Francis a pistol, and I presented another to Mr. Paull, at the same time assuring him, as I had Mr. Cooper, that Sir Francis came there without the slightest animosity against Mr. Paull; but that he would fire at him as a mode of self-defence. I said besides to Mr. Paull,—that I hoped he was thoroughly convinced that the injury he had received was of a nature not to be satisfied with anything short of attempting the life of my friend, and risking his own. He replied,—he must do so, unless he had an apology.

I then asked them if they would agree to fire by a signal I would make by dropping my handkerchief? They each did agree to it. I placed myself about four yards on one side the centre of the space between them; while Mr. Cooper, on giving the pistol to Sir Francis, retreated very precipitately behind a tree at some distance. On a signal being made, they fired together, but without effect. I then took Mr. Paull’s pistol from him, and said, “I hope, Sir, you are now satisfied.” He said, “No; I must have an apology, or proceed.” I said, “To talk of an apology is absurd, and quite out of all question.” I then reloaded the pistols, and gave them as before. I again addressed Mr. Paull as I had at first. He answered with warmth,—that he must have an apology, or proceed; and called God to witness that he was the most injured man on earth. Mr. Cooper was then to make the signal; but he stood so far out of the way, that Sir Francis could not see him, although he had already called to him during his retreat, and begged him not to go so far off, and to come forward, or words to that effect. At last I saw Sir Francis could not see Mr. Cooper, nor his signal; and upon his making it, I called out, “Fire,” to Sir Francis as soon as I saw Mr. Paull raise his pistol. They did so together, I believe, upon my uttering the words.

I should observe, that while they were waiting for the signal, I observed that Sir Francis held his arm raised, and his pistol pointed towards Mr. Paull. Knowing this was not with a view of taking any unfair advantage, but the effect of accident, I said, “Burdett, don’t take aim. I am sure you are not doing so; drop your arm, as you see Mr. Paull has his pistol pointed downwards.” Mr. Paull then asked me, why I advised Sir Francis not to take aim. I said—anybody might see that I could only mean for him not to take aim, or prepare to do so, before the signal, and from a desire to see that they were upon equal terms. The consequences of the second shots have been already described. After speaking to each of them, I set off for the carriages. Both were put into Mr. Paull’s. I went on to Sir Francis Burdett’s house, to Lady Burdett and his brother; and also to procure a surgeon at Wimbledon.

During the transaction not one word passed between me and Sir Francis, except what I said about taking aim. Mr. Cooper has constantly refused to sign any official account, to say where he lives, or what is his situation; which also was repeatedly requested of him before me; nor do I at this moment know anything further about him.

John Bellenden Ker.

BETWEEN MAJOR CAMPBELL AND CAPTAIN BOYD.
August 1808.

Trial of Major Campbell, of the 21st Regiment.

Alexander Campbell, Brevet-Major in the army, and a Captain in the 21st regiment, stood indicted for the “wilful and felonious murder” of Alexander Boyd, a captain in the said regiment, by shooting him, the said Alexander Boyd, with a pistol bullet.

To support this indictment, the following witnesses were produced:—

George Adams, who stated, that he had been assistant surgeon in the 21st Regiment, since April twelvemonths. He knew Major Campbell and Captain Boyd. In the year 1807 they were quartered in the barracks, in the county of Armagh side of Newry. On the 23rd of the said month, Captain Boyd died of a wound he received by a pistol bullet, which penetrated the extremity of the four false ribs, and lodged in the cavity of the belly. On that day the regiment was inspected by General Kerr; and, after the inspection, the General and officers messed together. About eight o’clock all the officers left the mess, except Major Campbell, Captain Boyd, witness, and a Lieutenant Hall. A conversation then commenced by Major Campbell stating, that General Kerr corrected him, that day, about a particular mode of giving a word of command, when he conceived he gave it right. He mentioned how he gave it, and how the General had corrected him. Captain Boyd remarked, that neither was correct according to Dundas, which was the King’s order. (This observation, witness stated, was made in the usual mode of conversation.) Major Campbell said, “it might not be according to the King’s order, but still he conceived it was not incorrect.” Captain Boyd still insisted it was not correct, according to the King’s order. They argued this some time, till Captain Boyd said,—he knew it as well as any man. Major Campbell replied,—he doubted that much. Captain Boyd at length said,—he knew it better than he, let him take that as he liked. Major Campbell then got up and said, “Then, Captain Boyd, do you say that I am wrong?” Captain Boyd replied, “I do. I know I am right by the King’s orders.” Major Campbell then quitted the room. Captain Boyd remained after him for some time. He left the room before the witness or Lieutenant Hall; but no observation was made on his going, more than on that of any other gentleman that had dined there. The witness and Lieutenant Hall went out together in a short time after. They went to a second mess-room, and there Captain Boyd came and spoke to them. (The conversation was not admitted in evidence, as Major Campbell was not present at it.) They then went out together, and the witness left Captain Boyd at Lieutenant Dewar’s. In about twenty minutes after he was called upon to visit Captain Boyd. He went, and found him on a chair vomiting. He examined his wound, and found it a very dangerous one. He survived it but eighteen hours. He stayed with him till he died, during which time he got gradually worse.

On his cross-examination he stated, that there was something irritating in Captain Boyd’s manner of making the observation alluded to; so much so, that he conceives Major Campbell could not, consistently with his feelings, pass it over. But, if a candid explanation had taken place, he did not conceive the melancholy affair would have occurred.

John Hoey stated, That he is mess-waiter for the 21st Regiment, and was so then. He remembers the night this affair took place. Knew Major Campbell and Captain Boyd. He saw Major Campbell that night in a room where he was washing glasses. Major Campbell had quitted the room ten or fifteen minutes. As Major Campbell was coming up stairs, Captain Boyd was leaving the mess-room, and they met on the stair-head. Both went into the mess-waiter’s room, and there remained ten or fifteen minutes, when they separated. The prisoner, in about twenty minutes, came again to the witness, and desired him to go to Captain Boyd, and tell him a gentleman wished to speak to him, if he pleased. He accordingly went in search of Captain Boyd. He found him on the parade ground. He delivered the message, and Captain Boyd accompanied him to the mess-room. No one was there. The witness pointed to a little room off it, as the room the gentleman was in. He then went to the mess-kitchen, and in eight or ten minutes he heard the report of a shot; thought nothing of it till he heard another. He then went to the mess-room, and there saw Captain Boyd and Lieutenants Hall and Macpherson. Captain Boyd was sitting on a chair vomiting. Major Campbell was gone, but in about ten or twelve minutes he came to the room where the witness was washing some glasses. Major Campbell asked for candles. He got a pair, and brought them into the small room. Major Campbell showed the witness the corners of the room, in which each person stood, which distance measured seven paces. He never saw Major Campbell after, till a week ago, though the witness never quitted the regiment, and retained his employment.

John Macpherson stated, That he is Lieutenant in the said regiment. Knew Major Campbell and Captain Boyd. Recollects the day of the duel. On the evening of that day, going up stairs about nine o’clock, he heard, as he thought, Major Campbell say, “On the word of a dying man, is everything fair?” He got up before Captain Boyd replied;—he said, “Campbell, you have hurried me; you’re a bad man.” Witness was in coloured clothes, and Major Campbell did not know him, but said again, “Boyd, before this stranger and Lieutenant Hall, was everything fair?” Captain Boyd replied, “O my Campbell! you know I wanted you to wait, and have friends!” Major Campbell then said, “Good God! will you mention before these gentlemen, was not everything fair? Did not you say, you were ready?” Captain Boyd answered, “Yes;” but in a moment after said, “Campbell, you are a bad man.” Captain Boyd was helped into the next room, and Major Campbell followed, much agitated, and repeatedly said to Captain Boyd, “that he (Boyd) was the happiest man of the two.”—“I am,” said Major Campbell, “an unfortunate man, but I hope not a bad one.” Major Campbell asked Captain Boyd if he forgave him? He stretched out his hand and said, “I forgive you; I feel for you, and I am sure you do for me.” Major Campbell then left the room.

Duncan Dewar, Adjutant of the regiment, who was with Captain Boyd for some time after he was wounded, was produced to show Captain Boyd’s firm conviction that he would die in consequence of that wound, in order to let in his declaration then made as evidence. But Captain Boyd not having (before him) expressed such a conviction, that evidence failed. Surgeon W. J. Nice was produced to the same point, and likewise failed.

Colonel Paterson, of the 21st Regiment, was produced to the same point, and also failed.

George Sutherland, Quarter-master of the same regiment, was produced to the same point. He stated that he saw him ten minutes before he died. He was in bed, agitated with pain, in his senses, but rolling in the bed. He did not, however, say to him that he thought he was dying.

Upon this, a special verdict was directed to the jury, to inquire whether Captain Boyd, ten minutes before his death, and under the circumstances stated, must or must not have known he was dying. After some short deliberation, they found for the affirmative of this issue (that he must have known it). The declaration was then admitted; but none could be proved within that space, except his asking for Major Campbell, and his saying, “Poor man, I am sorry for him.”

John Greenhill was produced merely to prove, that Major Campbell had time to cool after the altercation took place; inasmuch as he went home, drank tea with his family, and gave him a box to leave with Lieutenant Hall, before the affair took place.

Here the prosecution closed.

The defence set up was merely and exclusively the character of the prisoner, for humanity, peaceable conduct, and proper behaviour. To this, several officers of the highest rank were produced, who vouched for it to the fullest extent; namely, Colonel Paterson, of the 21st Regiment, General Campbell, General Graham Sterling, Captain Macpherson, Captain Menzies, and Colonel Grey: many others were in attendance whom it was unnecessary to produce.

The learned judge charged the jury in the most able manner, recapitulated the evidence, and explained the law on the subject most fully and clearly. The jury retired, and in about half an hour brought in a verdict, “Guilty of murder;” but recommended him to mercy, on the score of character only.

He was sentenced to be executed on Monday, but respited to Wednesday se’nnight.

And this respite was obtained by the greatest exertion. Mrs. Campbell, who was tenderly attached to her husband, having resolved to proceed to London, and solicit the Royal mercy, hastened to the sea-coast, but found that unexpected circumstances threatened to frustrate her fondest hopes. It blew a perfect hurricane, and no reward could tempt the captain of any vessel to venture to sea. While she was running up and down the shore in a distracted state, she met a few humble fishermen; and these poor fellows no sooner heard the cause of her agony than they offered her their service and their boat, in which she actually crossed the channel. Her noble companions not only refused to receive any reward, but attended her to the coach-office, and followed her several miles on the road, praying God to bless her, and grant her success.

On arriving at Windsor with her petition it was past eight o’clock, and the King had retired to his apartment; but the Queen, compassionating the afflicted wife, presented the memorial that night, and Mrs. Campbell received the kindest attention from the whole of the Royal family.

The case was anxiously debated in the council; but, after a full review of the circumstances, it was finally resolved that the law should take its course. Mrs. Campbell in the mean time proceeded to Scotland, cheered with the hope of obtaining, at least another respite. She reached Ayr, her paternal home, on the very morning that her husband’s corpse was brought thither to be interred.

When Major Campbell heard that his fate was decided, he prepared to meet death with the fortitude of the soldier and the resignation of the Christian. A change had come over the public mind, and universal sorrow for his fate had taken place of the prejudices which inaccurate reports of the duel had produced. By a strange concurrence of circumstances, his own regiment mounted guard round the scaffold. A vast multitude occupied every spot from which a view of the place of execution could be obtained. The crowd displayed the unusual show of all the gentry from the neighbouring country, assembled in deep mourning.

Precisely at noon Major Campbell appeared on the platform, supported by his father-in-law. Instantly the brave highlanders took off their military bonnets; and with streaming eyes, joined in prayer for the spirit about to be parted from its mortal tenement. The vast crowd stood uncovered in solemn silence, so that the grating of the falling drop was heard to the remotest extremity. One groan from the thousands of spectators, for an instant broke the profound silence, and proclaimed that all was over! His body, after having been suspended the usual time, was put into a hearse in waiting, which left the town immediately, escorted by Dr. Bowie, for Ayr in Scotland, to be interred in the family vault.

Major Campbell, in his conversation with his intimate friends, previously to surrendering himself, had always said, that if he were convicted of murder, he should suffer, as an example to duellists in Ireland; but it was always his opinion that a jury would not convict him of murder.

It has been erroneously stated, that the jury recommended the deceased, merely from his universal good character; but the jury recommended him in consequence of the duel having been a fair one; although, by the direction of the judge, they were bound, on their oaths, to convict the prisoner of murder. Major Campbell, previously to his death, observed, that life was not an object so dear to him, as the reflection was distressing, that his children and family should bear the stigma, that he was executed for murder.

Major Campbell made his escape from Ireland after the duel, and lived with his family, under a fictitious name, for several months, at Chelsea (the duel took place in June 1807); but his mind became so uneasy that he at last determined to surrender himself, be the result what it might.

His surrender, instead of being viewed as the result of penitence and sorrow, was regarded by too many as a mockery and a braving of justice. Utterly false as such a view of the case was, Campbell confirmed the prejudice against him by incautiously declaring, that he was sure the verdict could only be manslaughter. The misrepresentation of these words, as has been said, produced a strong effect on the minds of the presbyterians of Armagh. His modest and contrite deportment on his trial, and the excellent character given him by officers of the highest rank, went far towards turning the tide in his favour; but one of the witnesses for the defence is said to have exhibited a dictatorial air, as if his simple word would, or ought to decide the verdict; and this circumstance, it is reported, had a fatal influence.

He was first cousin to the Earl of Breadalbane, a man esteemed and beloved by all his friends. It is superfluous to add, that Mrs. Campbell was a most amiable woman. She had four infant children.

The unfortunate catastrophe, which produced such an awful result to Major Campbell, it is hoped will not fail to leave a lesson to mankind of salutary influence. Both of the parties were gentlemen, eminent in their profession, of high character and honour, who had long lived on terms of mutual friendship and esteem. The unfortunate irritation of a moment, at once deprived society of one of the best of men, and left a widow and infant family to mourn their irreparable loss. Retribution of the most awful kind fell to the lot of the other; and his amiable widow and helpless family were also involved in all the distress which the human mind can conceive.

From the period of the unhappy event to the closing of the tragic scene, Major Campbell evinced the most heartfelt grief for what had happened to his friend.

BETWEEN LORD PAGET AND THE HON. CAPT. CADOGAN.
May, 1809.

In order to prevent the appearance in the papers of any mis-statement respecting the duel which took place this morning between Lord Paget and Captain Cadogan, we, the respective friends of the parties, feel it incumbent on us to submit the following as the correct statement of the event as it occurred:—

In consequence of a challenge having been received by Lord Paget from Captain Cadogan, and every attempt to prevent a meeting having failed, the parties, attended by their respective friends, Captain Cadogan by Captain Mackenzie of the navy, Lord Paget by Lieut.-Colonel Vivian of the 7th Light Dragoons, met, as agreed, at seven o’clock, on Wimbledon Common. The ground having been taken at twelve paces distance, they were directed to fire together. Captain Cadogan fired; Lord Paget’s pistol flashed. This having been decided to go for fire, a question arose whether Lord Paget had taken aim, as if intending to hit his antagonist. Both the seconds being clearly of opinion that such was not his intention (although the degree of obliquity he gave to the direction of the pistol was such as to have been discovered only by particular observation), Captain Mackenzie stated to Captain Cadogan, that as it appeared to be Lord Paget’s intention not to fire at him, he could not admit of the affair proceeding any farther. Lieut.-Colonel Vivian then asked Captain Cadogan whether he had not himself observed that Lord Paget had not aimed at him, to which he replied in the affirmative. Captain Mackenzie then declared his determination not to remain any longer in the field, to witness any further act of hostility on the part of Captain Cadogan. Captain Cadogan replied, that of course his conduct must be decided by his second; declaring, at the same time, that he had come prepared for the fall of one of the parties. On Captain Mackenzie and Lieut.-Colonel Vivian making it known to Lord Paget, that as he evidently did not intend to fire at Captain Cadogan, the affair could go no farther; his lordship replied, “As such is your determination, I have now no hesitation in saying, that nothing could ever have induced me to add to the injuries I have already done the family, by firing at the brother of Lady Charlotte Wellesley.” The parties then left the ground.

(Signed) R. H. Vivian.

George Charles Mackenzie.

The cause of the above duel is well known. It arose from the seduction of the lady of the Hon. Henry Wellesley (sister of Captain Cadogan) by Lord Paget. Her husband afterwards gained 20,000l. damages in the Sheriff’s Court.

BETWEEN LORD CASTLEREAGH AND MR. CANNING.
Sept. 21, 1809.

A duel took place early this morning between Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, in which the latter received a wound in the left thigh; but happily it is not dangerous, being merely a flesh wound.

The meeting took place at Putney Heath. Lord Yarmouth seconded Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. R. Ellis accompanied Mr. Canning. We understand they fired by signal, at the distance of ten yards. The first missed; and no explanation taking place, they fired a second time, when Mr. Canning was wounded in the left thigh, on the outer side of the bone; and thus the affair terminated. He was put into a coach, and conveyed to Gloucester Lodge, his newly purchased seat at Brompton, and Lord Castlereagh returned to his house in St. James’s-square.

The circumstances of this celebrated political duel were the following:—“It had been long reported that there were divisions in the Duke of Portland’s cabinet, and that a change in some of the highest offices of State would take place. These divisions became public in the latter end of September, when Lord Castlereagh, then Secretary of War, sent a challenge to Mr. Canning, who held the seals of the foreign office.

Lord Castlereagh’s complaint was, that, they being both members of the cabinet, Mr. Canning had applied clandestinely to get him removed from office, for the purpose of bringing in the Marquis Wellesley in his place. Before Easter, it was affirmed, he made this application to the Duke of Portland, and obtained his promise that Lord Castlereagh should be removed from office. “Notwithstanding this promise,” said Castlereagh in his letter which accompanied the challenge, “by which I consider you presumed it unfit that I should remain charged with the conduct of the war, and by which my situation as a minister of the Crown was made dependent on your will and pleasure, you continued to sit in the same cabinet with me, and left me not only in the persuasion that I possessed your confidence and support as a colleague, but allowed me, in breach of every principle of good faith, both public and private, to originate and proceed in a new enterprise of the most arduous and important nature (the Walcheren expedition), with your apparent concurrence and ostensible approbation. You are fully aware that, if my situation in the Government had been disclosed to me, I could not have submitted to remain one moment in office, without the entire abandonment of private honour and public duty. You knew I was deceived, and you continued to deceive me.”

Without presuming to cast any unfavourable imputation on the well-earned fame of Mr. Canning, it cannot be denied that, if Lord Castlereagh’s statement was correct, Mr. Canning’s conduct was most unjustifiable, both on public and on private grounds—both as a statesman and a gentleman. If he considered Lord Castlereagh as unfit to manage the important charge with which he was entrusted, and indeed the Walcheren expedition alluded to afforded a convincing proof of the correctness of his opinion, it was his duty not to remain with him in the cabinet one single hour, if he could not overrule his proposals; but to coincide in a project which he condemned, and to continue to act in conjunction with a minister whose removal he had urged on the plea of incapacity, was an act most unaccountable on the part of Mr. Canning, and only tends to show, that men placed in a public situation will be guilty of acts which they would scorn, as dishonourable, in the common affairs of life.

BETWEEN MR. GEORGE PAYNE AND MR. CLARK.
Sept. 6, 1810.

A fatal duel was fought on Thursday morning upon Wimbledon Common by two gentlemen.

At half-past five o’clock three post-chaises were noticed passing over Putney Bridge, and at half-past six, one of the chaises returned to the Red Lion, at Putney, with a wounded gentleman, of the name of Payne. Mr. Heaviside was sent for, and found that a pistol ball had gone through the groin. The unfortunate gentleman died at half-past four o’clock the same afternoon.

Mr. George Payne was the younger son of the late Renè Payne, Esq., and he left him his fortune, to the amount of 14,000l. per annum. In that settlement, the whole now goes to his eldest son, except 500l. a year to his widow, and 10,000l. to his younger children. Mr. Payne has left four children by his wife, who was a Miss Gray.

The cause of the fatal duel is truly melancholy. The challenge took place about ten days ago, at Scarborough, but the quarrel was of a more distant date. The orphan daughter of the late Dr. Clark, of Newcastle, was the friend of Mrs. Payne, and a visitor in the family. An unfortunate attachment took place between Mr. Payne and Miss Clark, which transpiring, the irritated feelings of the brother induced him to resent it. Every means were tried by Mr. John Payne, the elder brother of the deceased, to avert the catastrophe, but in vain.

Mr. George Payne was most exemplary in all his conduct through life, except in this fatal attachment. He was a most liberal and a most amiable man. He had whispered to his second, Mr. Abbott, that he should not return Mr. Clark’s fire, but the first shot was mortal. Mr. Clark has effected his escape.

BETWEEN CAPT. BOARDMAN AND ENSIGN DE BETTON.
March 4, 1811.

In consequence of a trifling quarrel, a duel took place at Barbadoes, on the 15th of January, between Captain Boardman, of the second battalion of the 60th regiment, and Ensign De Betton, of the Royal West India Rangers, in which, at the first fire, the former was shot through the heart, and instantly expired. The survivor immediately escaped from the island.