"Yesterday morning, between ten and eleven o'clock, one of those disgraceful scenes, the sale of a wife, took place at the New Islington Cattle Market. It appears that at about nine o'clock a man about forty-two years of age, of shabby genteel exterior, led a well-looking young woman, about thirty years of age, with a halter round her waist, to Smithfield Market; and, having tied her up, was about to offer her to the highest bidder; but, several persons interfering, it was agreed to go forthwith to Islington Market to accomplish their object; and, in order to expedite the matter, they jumped into a hackney coach, and were driven off at full speed, to the spot where the marriage knot was to be dissolved. They were followed from Smithfield by a young man of plausible appearance, who on seeing the wife tied up at Islington Market for sale, bid 5s. for her, but he was outbid by several persons, but, subsequently, became purchaser of the lot for 26s., and conveyed her home in a coach to his lodgings. The other man walked home, whistling merrily, declaring he had got rid of a troublesome, noisy woman, and that it was the happiest day of his life. Surely the police ought to have interfered to prevent such a disgusting outrage upon Society."
Well! the lower classes of the time were simply animal brutes, with very little of Arnold's "sweetness and light" in their composition. Uneducated, ignorant, very seldom moving from one spot, badly housed, and nobody's care, it would have been a wonder had it been otherwise. The middle-class were steady-going, stay-at-home people, with not too much brains, and even of them making but little use—and they were only emerging from the barbarism which required the solution of any disagreement among men to be settled by physical force, either by fists or the duel. It is astonishing to see how these contests fell off in this reign, as public opinion declared itself against the practice of duelling.
People of old quarrelled and killed each other about such very trifles. Colonel Montgomery was shot in a duel about a dog, Captain Ramsay in one about a servant, Mr. Featherston in one about a recruit, Sterne's father in one about a goose, and some one else about an "acre of anchovies" instead of "artichokes." One officer was challenged for merely asking his opponent to have another glass, and another was compelled to fight about a pinch of snuff, while General Barry was challenged by a Captain Smith for declining a glass of wine with him at dinner in a steamboat, although the general had pleaded in excuse that wine invariably made him sick at sea.
But when William the Fourth was King, public opinion was set against the practice, and this was so felt, that quarrelsome persons betook themselves abroad to settle their differences. This was the case in a famous duel in 1834, between Captain Helsham and Lieutenant Crowther, at Boulogne, in which the latter was killed. Captain Helsham stood his trial for murder at the Old Bailey on October 8th, and was acquitted. In September of the same year Lord Bingham and Major Fitzgerald met at Brussels, but they did not fight. O'Connell's tongue got him into many scrapes. In 1815 he shot D'Esterre in a duel. In October, 1834, he was challenged by Sir Henry Hardinge for having applied most offensive and outrageous terms of personal insult to him; but the Irishman refused to fight, which was a wonder, as they were generally too eager for the fray. Witness a hostile meeting which took place near Ashbourne, about ten miles from Dublin, on December 23, 1834, between Messrs. Pope and L'Estrange, in which "the misunderstanding arose from expressions used in the theatre regarding a lady whom Mr. Pope had attended thither." One newspaper, the Times of October 2, 1832, records three duels.
The O'Connells were particularly fond of duelling. On December 13, 1832, William John O'Connell, nephew of the "Liberator," fought a Mr. Richard Kearney in the deer park at Greenwich. All the parties concerned had dined together at the Piazza Hotel, Regent Street, and afterwards adjourned to some place of amusement, where a row ensued, and the outcome was a meeting at Chalk Farm the same evening, but as the evening was too dark, it was adjourned till the next morning, and came off in Greenwich Park. O'Connell shot his man in the leg, and was afterwards apprehended by the police, and bound over to keep the peace for six months. On May 11, 1834, a duel was fought at Exeter, between Dr. Hennis, a young physician, and Sir John Jeffcott, recently appointed Chief Justice and Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court, Sierra Leone. Dr. Hennis did not fire, but was mortally wounded by the judge, who at once got on board a ship and set sail for Africa, thus eluding the police. The seconds were arrested, as accessories, but at their trial were acquitted.
In 1834, Sir Robert Peel challenged both Dr. Lushington and Joseph Hume, but the causes of quarrel were courteously explained, and no meetings took place. On May 5, 1835, a duel was fought, in a field on the Finchley Road, between Lord Alvanley and Morgan O'Connell, son of the "Liberator." The ground was measured at twelve paces, and it was agreed that Colonel Damer should give the word, which was to be "Ready!—Fire!" The parties were placed, and the pistols were delivered, Colonel Damer gave the words, and O'Connell fired; but not so Lord Alvanley, who said he thought the words were only preparatory, and claimed his right to fire. This was disallowed, and another round was fired without effect. Mr. O'Connell not being satisfied, yet another was arranged, after which, Lord Alvanley's second declared he would walk his man off the ground; this also was fired, without effect, and the duel terminated.
I have now to chronicle a passage of arms which, luckily, was bloodless, between two celebrities—Daniel O'Connell and Benjamin D'Israeli. At a meeting of the Franchise Association, held on May 2, 1835, at the Corn Exchange, Dublin, O'Connell stated that he had something to mention, personal to himself. Of all the abusive attacks that had ever been made on him, that recently volunteered by a Mr. D'Israeli, the unsuccessful Tory candidate at Taunton, was the most reckless, unprovoked, and unwarrantable. All that he knew of this Mr. D'Israeli was, that he had sent to him (Mr. O'Connell) in 1831, to write a letter in his favour to the electors of Wickham, for which he was a candidate in the Radical interest. On that occasion he was unsuccessful, as well as in a subsequent attempt as a Radical in Marylebone. Since then he had made some attempts to get into Parliament as a Tory, and certainly no one was so fit for the Tory faction as a man who had been twice rejected by the Radicals.
He had called him (Mr. O'Connell) a traitor and an incendiary; and, having thus grossly and maliciously assailed him, he should not be restrained by any notion of false delicacy in describing Mr. D'Israeli in the terms his conduct merited. Here the honourable and learned gentleman uttered a terrible philippic against Mr. D'Israeli, of which the following passage is a specimen. In describing Mr. D'Israeli as a descendant of a Jew (without meaning to cast any imputation either on the name, or the nation, which he respected) Mr. O'Connell said that he verily believed that, although the people of Israel were the chosen of God, yet there were miscreants amongst them also, and Mr. D'Israeli was one of those, for he possessed the quality of the impenitent thief who died upon the cross, and he (Mr. O'Connell) was convinced that that thief's name was D'Israeli. For aught he knew, this D'Israeli might be his heir-at-law, and now he forgave the descendant of the blasphemous thief who died impenitent upon the cross.
It is not possible to suppose that Mr. D'Israeli could pass this calmly by; and he did not, but wrote to O'Connell's son as follows:—
"31A, Park Street, Grosvenor Square,
"Tuesday, May 5.