SUCH was the frequent occurrence of duels in this long reign, that _one
hundred and seventy-two_ were fought (in which three hundred and
forty-four persons were concerned); _sixty-nine_ individuals were
killed—in _three_ of these fatal cases neither of the combatants
survived; _ninety-six_ were wounded, forty-eight of them desperately,
and forty-eight slightly; while one hundred and seventy-nine escaped
unhurt.
From this statement it will be seen, that rather more than _one_ fifth
of the combatants lost their lives, and that nearly _one half_ received
the bullets of their antagonists. It also appears, that only _eighteen_
trials took place; that _six_ of the arraigned individuals were
_acquitted_; _seven_ found guilty of manslaughter, and _three_ of
murder,—_two_ of whom were executed, and _eight imprisoned_ during
different periods.
When we compare the frequency of duelling during this period and
subsequent reigns, and at the same time consider how much more fatal
these meetings generally proved, we are naturally led to inquire into
the causes of this material difference and amelioration in the condition
of society. Desirable indeed would it be, if this circumstance could be
attributed to a better feeling in the upper classes, and a just
detestation of a practice as absurd as it is inhuman; but it is to be
feared, that the influence of fashion here had no inconsiderable share
in the change of manners. Though many men pre-eminent in public
estimation have sanctioned the practice by their example; yet how few
are they compared with those of former times, where we find York,
Norfolk, Richmond, Bellamont, Exmouth, Talbot, Townshend, Shelburne,
Paget, Castlereagh, Petersham, Pitt, Fox, Sheridan, Canning, Tierney,
and many others of rank and distinction! May not this circumstance be
also in some measure attributed to the frequency of the virulent
discussions, which have become so frequent during the constant struggles
for power, when insults becoming, one may say, of daily occurrence, are
rarely noticed? Has not the influence of the increased number of
newspapers, many of which have been conducted with a degree of personal
animosity, and we must say, ungentlemanly vituperation, rendered the use
of offensive language so general as to have become a matter of course in
political argument, and therefore rarely noticed, except by still more
abusive recrimination? If such a latitude in degrading phraseology had
been as generally prevalent in France, scarcely an editor would be now
living to vindicate his excesses, by the satisfaction of pleading his
antagonist’s death; the lie, the blow, which would once have required
the fall of one of the parties, is now only resented by another
accusation of falsehood, a second edition of a thrashing, or an action
at law.
Of late years, the most unwarrantable parliamentary language has been
apologized for, on the plea of its not having been allusive to private
character, so that a legislator, or a minister, may be considered a
political scoundrel, but a worthy individual member of society; guilty
of a falsehood in the house, but devoted to the cause of truth beyond
the purlieus of St. Stephen; faithful to all his engagements with the
world, but a traitor to his country; for, after all, what is the
language of opposition, but a strenuous endeavour to impugn an
adversary’s veracity, to show, that for mere lucre or the vanity of
possessing power and patronage, he betrays the most sacred trust reposed
in him by his sovereign; that he hurries his country to perdition for
the selfish motive of personal aggrandisement, and sacrifices the
national weal for his own benefit and that of his family and dependants?
can there be any insult offered to a man more pungent, more degrading?
The lie, the blow, given in a moment of passionate ebullition, are
trifling offences, when compared to such serious charges, which, if
substantiated, should not only expose a man to universal contempt and
detestation, but to the most ignoble death. When such impeachments are
hourly, daily made, can we expect much sensitiveness when reciprocal
abuse is bandied at the bar of the House, as well as at the bar of
courts of justice? Pleaders consider themselves justifiable in using the
bitterest, the most unwarrantable language. They dress for the character
they perform in wig and gown; and fancy that when they have doffed their
attributes, they withdraw from the stage, and have merely performed
their part in the great drama of life. Then again, in the intemperate
language of opposition, how often does galling necessity, and bitter
disappointment in not obtaining office (when its emoluments are
required, to keep the wolf from the postulant’s door), prompt the
orator? and many a time perhaps an eloquent senator has drawn out the
headings of his speech, on the back of an attorney’s threatening letter,
and the evil day is ever put off with the usual promise of speedy
liquidation “_when the present people go out_.”
Men, in a public sphere of life, are, to a certain extent, public
property. Their actions are exposed to the scrutiny of the community at
large. A writer, however galled his acute vanity may be, cannot consider
the abuse lavished on his productions as a personal insult; and it is
the same with the politician,—the invectives poured upon his public
conduct are not esteemed as aspersions on his private character. A
falsehood is considered an expedient evasion, an error; and a personal
invective, a mere ebullition of eloquence, a bubbling over of the
diplomatic cabinet, an opposition caldron, as heterogeneous and
monstrous in its contents as that of the weird sisters.
These observations are not intended to condemn this philosophical view
of the subject. Were these excesses noticed at the pistol’s muzzle, it
would only be adding murder to corruption; and, as society is
constituted, when an electioneering hustings may be oftentimes compared
to a stall at Billinsgate, a candidate who seeks to vindicate what he is
complacently pleased to call _his honour_, must indeed be a Quixotic
character, when he in general conscientiously knows that every syllable
of his address to the voters is void of veracity, and all his pledges
futile and false.
The frequent occurrence of duels, in former times, may also be
attributed to the mode of living in days fortunately gone by. Hard
drinking is now rarely heard of; and when it was in fashion, insults
were often given under the influence of liquor, and vindicated under the
plea of excitement from the preceding night’s excesses. In Ireland it
was not uncommon for parties to sit up carousing during the entire night
preceding the murderous meeting; and the break of day, through the
casement of the hall of revelry, was the signal for departure to the
field. One of the greatest curses of intemperance is the extreme
susceptibility which it gives our pride and vanity; and if there is any
ground for the proverb, _in vino veritas_, it may be attributed to the
fact, that under this potent influence we sometimes know ourselves
better than in our more sober hours. The pangs of repentance are more
bitter, although they may be transient in these moments of excited
reflection, when the past, the present, and the future are exaggerated
in all their circumstances by an imagination morbidly vivid. It is then
that we love, and hate, with all the energy of our hearts; that all our
evil passions, and sometimes our good feelings, prevail; for the miser,
over his cups, may become generous; the barbarous, humane; and the man
who has perpetrated the most reckless crimes, will weep with apparent
anguish over ideal woes. Were it possible to ascertain the influence of
intemperance in the many duels that have been fought, it would doubtless
appear that many of these fatal quarrels would never have taken place in
a sober society.
It is also to be observed, that duels, when of constant recurrence,
became the subject of general conversation, and duels, like suicide,
bear a fashionably contagious character, which spreads widely in
society, and then the most mistaken of criminals fancies that he must
also avenge certain wrongs, or rid himself of an uncertain life. The one
feels a pleasure in killing a supposed enemy, and the other seeks a
riddance from pain by killing himself. The one thinks that he must
establish a character of courage, not to be despised by society, and the
suicide bids farewell to a society which he disgraces; whereas, neither
the one nor the other in these desperate acts displays a particle of
true courage.
In the present state of society, insults to women are comparatively
rare; and indeed, unless a person, who in the slightest degree claims
the character of a gentleman, is labouring under the brutalizing
influence of liquor, it is scarcely possible to imagine how he can so
far forget every manly attribute as to offend a being whom nature has
placed under our protection, and to whose assistance, when in danger, we
rush instinctively. This cause of duelling is therefore seldom noticed.
Leaving off the wearing of swords, as I have already observed, rendered
bloody frays less frequent; but at the same time, the adoption of
pistols gave a much more serious complexion to a hostile meeting. It is
true, that comparatively few shots tell, but the wounds of fire-arms are
in general more dangerous than those inflicted by a rapier. Skill in
fencing might be of considerable advantage to a good swordsman; but it
is also a well-known fact, that a man who has science in fencing, can
not only parry a thrust, but inflict a mortal wound on one less
dexterous. Moreover, when what was called the _first blood_ was drawn,
however trifling the scratch, the seconds generally interposed. It may
be therefore concluded, that as mankind is taught to think soberly, the
danger of a duel may deter many from rashly running its chance.
In recording the many duels that took place during this reign, several
of them may appear trivial, and not worthy of notice, yet, as the
history of duelling, as I have already said, may be considered as the
mirror of the manners and prevalent ideas of the day, these
circumstances, however insignificant, are of importance, inasmuch as
they show both the progress and the gradual decline of this detestable
practice; they will tend also to point out those cases where the most
punctilious should have been amply satisfied with an apology, and where
the seconds were guilty of murder, by allowing their principals to
proceed to the fatal extremity of sending life in pursuit of the phantom
misnamed _Honour._
BETWEEN LORD KILMAURS AND A FRENCH OFFICER,
May 1765.
Although this meeting took place at Marseilles; yet, as being one highly
characteristic of the times, it may be properly considered here.
Lord Kilmaurs was the eldest son of the Earl of Glencarne, and was one
of the best-natured persons imaginable; but, unfortunately, was
extremely deaf. Being one evening at the playhouse, he was talking
rather loudly to the person who sat next to him, as deaf people
generally do. This happened to give offence to a French officer, who was
in the neighbouring box, who called out to his Lordship “_Paix!_”
(silence); which word the officer repeated two or three times without
its being heard, or of course attended to. Upon which the Frenchman
rose, and exclaimed, with great violence in an angry tone of voice,
“_Taisez-vous!_” His Lordship this time heard the insolent address; and
observing the supercilious air that accompanied it, replied, that as the
other had no right to command silence there, he should show his utter
contempt of his insolent injunction by talking still louder, which he
accordingly did.
The French officer soon after left the box; and, as his Lordship’s ill
star would have it, he also quitted his, and went into another, where
the same officer was, but, it is reported, without the least thought of
what had taken place, so much so indeed, that looking about him on
entering the box, he cast his eyes on the officer without recollecting
him. The indignant Frenchman ran up to him, and asked him, what he meant
by staring him in the face. To which Lord Kilmaurs replied, that he had
a right to look at any one. The officer indignantly replied, that he was
not to be treated in such a manner with impunity. Without any further
preamble he exclaimed, “Come along!” and pulled his Lordship by the arm
out of the box, and in the middle of the street struck him across the
shoulder with his naked sword. Upon which Lord Kilmaurs drew, and made a
pass or two; and before any one arrived to part them, received the sword
of his antagonist in the pit of his stomach, whence it passed through
his right shoulder; on which they were parted. They were immediately
surrounded by numberless spectators. At first his Lordship was hardly
sensible of his wound, but in a few moments he dropped down speechless;
in which situation he must inevitably have been smothered by the
pressing on of the crowd, had not the Duke de Pequigny brought a guard
to keep them off. Again, he ran the risk of being stifled with his own
blood, had not a surgeon, passing through the crowd, cut his stock and
the neck of his shirt, and applied some drops to his nostrils. He
remained several hours speechless, with almost every mortal symptom.
These, however, passed off, and in three days he was out of danger. The
officer took post immediately into the Pope’s dominions at Avignon,
while a short detail of the affair was sent to the British ambassador at
Paris, who settled the affair.
* * * * *
The same year (1765), a duel was fought between two officers on
Kennington Common, when a Major A—— was desperately wounded by a ball in
the breast, which came out at his side. His opponent effected his
escape.
* * * * *
In 1769 a duel was fought in Ireland between Henry Flood and James Agar,
when the latter was shot dead. An old quarrel had long subsisted between
them, and this mode of arranging their differences was ultimately agreed
upon.
* * * * *
Duels between dramatic performers are uncommon occurrences. It is true,
that there does not exist a class of society more morbidly alive to the
unction of flattery than players; but they are so accustomed to rudeness
of behaviour amongst each other, the green-room and stage _familiarity_
fully illustrating the old proverb, that insults generally go, if not
_unheeded_, at any rate, according to the ideas of honour generally
entertained, _unrevenged_. In 1770, on the 17th November, a meeting took
place between George Garrick, the brother of the celebrated David, and
Mr. Baddeley, both of Drury Lane. The trumpet of fame had long accused
George Garrick of being concerned in an intrigue with Baddeley’s wife,
till at last Baddeley, urged on by an intriguing mischievous Jew, who
was himself a great admirer of the lady, was persuaded, that it became
him, as a man of _parts_, to demand satisfaction. The parties very
reluctantly met in Hyde Park; when Baddeley discharged his pistol
without effect, and, indeed, it was reported, without aim, as his arm
was as unsteady as that of Gil Blas in his first action with the
robbers. Garrick magnanimously fired his in the air. On the arrival of
Mrs. Baddeley, in a hackney-coach, who, jumping out of the vehicle,
threw herself between the combatants in an imploring attitude,
exclaiming, “Spare him! spare him!” the _tableau_ was so effective that
the parties embraced each other, and the interlude was concluded by a
general reconciliation.
BETWEEN LORD MILTON AND LORD POULETT,
January 29, 1771.
The cause of this duel was never well known. However, the meeting took
place behind Bedford House. Lord John Cavendish was Lord Milton’s
second; and Captain Kelly, Lord Poulett’s. When they had taken their
ground. Lord Milton desired Lord Poulett to fire first, which he did,
and the ball entered Lord Milton’s belly.
* * * * *
In 1772 a melancholy meeting took place between a Mr. M’Lean, of
Gartmoor, in Scotland, and a Mr. Cameron. An old grudge had existed
between them, when the latter gave M’Lean the lie; a duel followed, and
M’Lean was killed on the spot. His mother, on hearing of the melancholy
event, was deprived of her reason, and a Miss M’Leod, a young lady, to
whom Mr. M’Lean was soon to have been married, was seized with fits, and
died three days after.
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.