When Miss King was taken by her father from England, on account of her

disgrace, it was discovered, on her arrival in Dublin, that the

servant-maid, who accompanied her, favoured the views of the seducer. On

her consequent dismissal from the service she returned to England, and

was the bearer of a private letter to Colonel Fitzgerald, the contents

of which were, it is said, sufficient to induce the Colonel, even at the

risk of his life, to make an effort to regain the young lady. But his

finances not enabling him to undertake the journey, he borrowed a sum of

money of an amiable woman, who ought to have been most dear to him,

under the pretence of making a visit to Dorsetshire. Thus accommodated,

he set out for the sister kingdom, and arrived at the village of

Kilworth, near Mitchelstown, the residence of the noble family, and the

place where the young lady was then kept, whose conduct was then watched

with particular vigilance.

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

May 21, 1798.

In consequence of some expressions made use of by Mr. Pitt in the House

of Commons on the Friday previous, Mr. Pitt, accompanied by Mr. Rider,

and Mr. Tierney, accompanied by Mr. George Walpole, met at three o’clock

in the afternoon on Putney Heath.

After some ineffectual attempts on the part of the seconds to prevent

farther proceedings, the parties took their ground at the distance of

twelve paces. A case of pistols was fired at the same moment without

effect. A second case was also fired in the same manner. Mr. Pitt having

fired his pistol in the air, the seconds jointly interfered, and

insisted that the matter should go no farther, it being their decided

opinion that sufficient satisfaction had been given, and that the

business was ended with perfect honour to both parties.

BETWEEN COL. HARVEY ASTON AND MAJOR ALLEN.

December 23, 1798.

Died, at Madras, in consequence of a wound which he received in a duel

with Major Allen, of which he languished about a week, Colonel Harvey

Aston.

He had been engaged in a similar affair of honour, and on the same

account, with Major Picton only the day preceding that on which he met

Major Allen; but which was fortunately terminated by each party firing

in the air, and a proper explanation taking place as to the offence.

BETWEEN MESSRS. COOLAN AND MORCAN.

Dublin, March 13, 1800.

This morning two students of our University, Messrs. Coolan and Morcan,

in consequence of an unhappy dispute the preceding evening, met in the

fields near Harcourt-street. They fired at the same moment, when Mr.

Coolan’s shot unfortunately took place in the temple of his antagonist,

and killed him on the spot. The surviving combatant has been expelled

the college, and the two seconds have been rusticated.

BETWEEN J. CORRY, ESQ. AND —— NEWBURGH, ESQ.

May 10, 1800.

Yesterday a meeting took place on Drumcondra-road, between James Corry,

Esq., of Lurgan-street, and —— Newburgh, Esq., in consequence of a

dispute, and, as alleged, the provocation of a blow given by the latter

to the former. The latter gentleman was accompanied on the ground by

Captain Warring of the 24th Dragoons, as his second; the other by Mr.

Weir, one of the attorneys.

Having taken their ground, the signal was given to fire. Mr. Corry’s

pistol went off without effect, Mr. Newburgh’s missed fire. He was

preparing to fire it afterwards, when his second called to him, telling

him, the snap in duelling was considered as a fire. Both gentlemen were

then provided with other pistols, and received the signal to fire again,

which they did, and Mr. Newburgh was shot through the heart and expired.

Mr. Newburgh was the only son of Broghill Newburgh, of the county of

Cavan, Esq. of an ancient family, and heir-apparent to an estate of

5000_l._ per annum.

Mr. Corry is an élève of the Speaker of the House of Commons, by whom he

was placed in the lucrative situation of clerk to the Linen Board; a

place which was enjoyed by his father, who was also a great favourite

with Mr. Foster.

The deceased was upwards of thirty years of age, and married to the

daughter of Mr. Camac, an East India gentleman, with a fortune of

30,000_l._ He was related to Lord Enniskillen, Lord Erne, Lord Gosford,

and some other of the best families in Ireland.

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

and inoffensive manners.

BETWEEN MR. P. HAMILTON AND MR. G. I. EAKER.

January, 1802.

A duel took place at New York, between Mr. P. Hamilton, son of General

Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. G. I. Eaker; in which, at the first fire,

Mr. Hamilton was shot through the body. He languished until the next

day, when he died.

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

August, 1802.

At Savannah, William Hunter, Esq., fell in a duel with Mr. David

Mitchell. The dispute had its origin in July last, in the county court,

to the jury of which Mr. Hunter was foreman, in a cause in which

Mitchell was counsel. During the trial, it appearing to Mr. Hunter that

the examination of the evidence was not conducted by the counsel with

that impartiality which justice required, he addressed a few words to

the court, when Mitchell got up and observed, that Mr. Hunter was very

officious on the occasion. Mr. Hunter replied, that the officiousness of

jurymen was not to be compared with the impertinence of some attorneys.

There the matter rested till August 9th, when Mitchell attacked Mr.

Hunter in the street with a large bludgeon. Mr. Hunter, having nothing

to defend himself with, after receiving four blows and attempting

unsuccessfully, at the same time, to seize Mitchell by the collar, said,

“Mr. Mitchell, I am unarmed; I must retreat unless you lay aside your

weapon.” Mr. Hunter then retreated to Dr. Kollock’s for a cane, but

could not procure one. By this time some of the inhabitants interfered.

The same evening Mr. Hunter sent Mr. Mitchell a challenge, who, after

much equivocation, accepted it. Dr. Kollock was Mr. Hunter’s second,

Major B. Maxwell was second to Mitchell. Mr. Hunter fired first, and hit

Mitchell on the hip; Mitchell missed Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter’s second

fire hit Mitchell on the groin also, without penetrating the skin; but

Mr. Hunter received Mitchell’s second ball in his right breast. Mr.

Hunter immediately turned, and exclaimed, “I am a dead man;” and as Drs.

Glenn and Kollock caught him in their arms he asked for a glass of wine

and expired.

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

March, 1803.

This morning a most extraordinary duel took place in Hyde Park, between

Lieutenant W——, of the navy, and Captain I——, of the army.

The antagonists arrived at the appointed place within a few minutes of

each other. Some dispute arose respecting the distance, which the

friends of Lieutenant W—— insisted should not exceed six paces; while

the seconds of Captain I—— urged strongly the rashness of so short a

distance, and insisted on its being extended. At length the proposal of

Lieutenant W——’s friends was agreed to, and the parties fired per

signal; when Lieutenant W—— received the shot of his adversary on the

guard of his pistol, which tore away the third and fourth fingers of his

right hand. The seconds then interfered to no purpose. The son of

Neptune, apparently callous to pain, wrapped his handkerchief round his

hand, and swore he had another, which never failed him. Captain I——

called his friend aside, and told him it was in vain to urge a

reconciliation. They again took their ground. On Lieutenant W——

receiving the pistol in his left hand, he looked steadfastly at Captain

I—— for some time, then cast his eyes to heaven, and said, “Forgive me.”

The parties fired as before, and both fell. Captain I—— received the

shot through his head, and instantly expired. Lieutenant W—— received

the ball in his left breast, and immediately inquired of his friend if

Captain I——’s wound was mortal? Being answered in the affirmative, he

thanked Heaven he had lived thus long. He requested that a mourning

ring, which was on his finger, might be given to his sister; and that

she might be assured it was the happiest moment he ever knew. He had

scarcely finished the word when a quantity of blood burst from his

wound, and he expired almost without a struggle.

The unfortunate young man was on the eve of being married to a lady in

Hampshire, to whom for some time he had paid his addresses.

BETWEEN LIEUT.-COLONEL MONTGOMERY AND CAPTAIN MACNAMARA.

April 6, 1803.

As Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery and Captain Macnamara were riding in

Hyde Park, each followed by a Newfoundland dog, the dogs fought; and

Colonel Montgomery, who did not see that Captain Macnamara was near,

after separating the animals, exclaimed, “Whose dog is that? I will

knock him down!” To which Captain Macnamara replied, “Have you the

impudence to say that you will knock my dog down? You must first knock

me down.” An altercation ensued, an exchange of cards followed, and an

appointment to meet at 7 o’clock in the evening, near Primrose Hill; the

consequence of which proved fatal. Captain Macnamara’s ball entered the

right side of Colonel Montgomery’s chest, and taking a direction to the

left, most probably went through the heart; he instantly fell, without

uttering a word, but rolled over two or three times as if in great

agony, and groaned. Colonel Montgomery’s ball went through Captain

Macnamara, entering on the right side, just above the hip, and passing

through the left side, carrying part of the coat and waistcoat in with

it, taking part of his leather breeches, and the hip button, away with

it on the other side.

Colonel Montgomery was carried by some of the persons standing by, into

Chalk Farm, where he was laid on a bed, attended by Mr. Heaviside. As

they were carrying him, he attempted to speak and spit; but the blood

choked him. His mouth foamed much; and in about five minutes after he

was brought into the house, he expired with a gentle sigh.

Captain Macnamara was a naval officer, who has much distinguished

himself in two or three actions, as commander of the Cerberus frigate.

He had lately returned from the West Indies; and his ship was, about two

months ago, paid off at Chatham. He was about thirty-six years of age; a

strong, bold, active man. He had fought two or three duels before; and

was remarkable at Cork, for keeping the turbulent in awe.

Colonel Montgomery was Lieutenant-Colonel of the ninth regiment of foot,

son of Sir Robert Montgomery, of Ireland, and half-brother of Mrs.

George Byng, and the Marchioness Townshend. He was a remarkably handsome

man, and he had, also, fought bravely in the service of his country. In

the Dutch expedition, the Russians being put to flight, his regiment was

thrown into confusion, and retreated, in consequence of the Russians

falling back upon them. At this time a drummer was killed, and Colonel

Montgomery took up the drum, beating it to rally his men, he himself

standing alone. He succeeded in rallying them, and at their head

rendered essential service. On several occasions, in Egypt and Malta

also, he had distinguished himself by his courage and spirit. He was

very intimate with the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York. The former

shed tears on being apprised of the melancholy end of his friend.

Colonel Montgomery was well known in London by the _sobriquet_ of the

Duke of Hamilton’s _double_, from his studiously copying that nobleman’s

style of dress.

Captain Macnamara recovered of his wound, and was tried for murder. His

defence, which was prepared by Lord Erskine (then Mr. Erskine),

stated:—“I am a captain of the British navy. My character you can hear

only from others. But to maintain my character in that situation I must

be respected. When called upon to lead others into honourable danger, I

must not be supposed to be a man who sought safety by submitting to what

custom has taught others to consider as a disgrace. I am not presuming

to urge anything against the law of God, or of this land. I know, that

in the eyes of duty and reason, obedience to the law, though against the

feelings of the world, is the first duty, and ought to be the rule of

action; but upon putting a construction upon my motives, so as to

ascertain the quality of my actions, you will make allowance for my

situation. It is impossible to define in terms the proper feelings of a

gentleman; but their existence has supported this country for many ages,

and she might perish if they were lost.”

April 15.

Yesterday morning Mr. Heaviside, the surgeon, was arrested by Townsend,

under authority of a warrant from Sir Richard Ford, wherein he stands

charged with having been aiding and assisting in the murder of Colonel

Montgomery; and, after undergoing a private examination before the above

magistrate, at Bow Street, he was fully committed to Newgate for trial,

at the ensuing Old Bailey Sessions. Several witnesses were also

privately examined respecting the duel, and bound over to appear on the

trial.

Captain Macnamara was yesterday declared out of danger, but was not yet

well enough to be removed.

The coroner’s inquest, on taking a view of the body of Colonel

Montgomery, brought in a verdict of “manslaughter.” The remains were

buried in a vault in St. James’s Church.

The evidence being closed, the prisoner addressed the jury in mitigation

of his conduct.

Lords Hood, Nelson, Hotham, and Minto, and a great number of highly

respectable gentlemen gave Captain Macnamara a most excellent character.

Mr. Justice Heath summed up the evidence, and stated, that, from the

pressure of the evidence, and the prisoner’s own admission, the jury

must find a verdict of “manslaughter.” They were, however, of a

different opinion; for, after retiring a quarter of an hour, they

pronounced a verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN LORD CAMELFORD AND CAPTAIN BEST.

March, 1804.

A duel has been fought between Lord Camelford and Captain Best, of the

Royal Navy, in the fields behind Holland House, near Kensington.

The meeting is said to have taken place in consequence of a quarrel

between the parties, who were intimate friends, on the preceding

evening, at the Prince of Wales’s Coffee-house.

Lord Camelford and Mr. Best had been intimate friends; both were young

men of fashion, and esteemed first-rate shots. The subject of their

quarrel was an abandoned woman, of the name of Symons, who had formerly

lived with Mr. Best, but was then under the protection of Lord

Camelford. This woman meeting Mr. Best at the Opera, made of him a

request inconsistent with their relative positions; and on being

refused, declared she would set Lord Camelford _upon him_; and

accordingly complained to his Lordship, that Mr. Best had spoken

disrespectfully of him. This greatly incensed Lord Camelford; and at the

Prince of Wales’s Hotel, where they generally dined, he went up to Mr.

Best, and said, loud enough to be heard by all present, “I find that you

have spoken of me in the most unwarrantable terms.” Mr. Best mildly

replied, that he was utterly unconscious of deserving such a charge; to

which Lord Camelford answered, that he was not ignorant of what he had

said of him to Mrs. Symons, and pronounced him to be a _scoundrel_, a

_liar_, and a _ruffian_. Mr. Best said, that these were expressions

which admitted but of one course, and a meeting was immediately arranged

for the next morning.

In the course of the evening Mr. Best conveyed to Lord Camelford the

strongest assurance that the information he had received was unfounded;

and believing that his Lordship was acting under a wrong impression, he

would be satisfied if the expressions he had made use of were retracted.

This Lord Camelford refused to do. Attended by their respective friends,

they met the following morning at a coffee-house in Oxford Street; and

there again Mr. Best made an effort to obtain a retractation of the

insulting words. He went up to his Lordship, and said, “Camelford, we

have been friends, and I know the unsuspecting generosity of your

nature; upon my honour, you have been imposed upon by a strumpet. Do not

persist in expressions under which one of us must fall.” Lord Camelford

answered, “Best, this is child’s play; the affair must go on.”

And yet at this moment Lord Camelford had in his heart acquitted Mr.

Best, and had confidently stated to his second, that he knew he was in

the wrong; that Best was a man of honour; but that he could not bring

himself to retract words which he had once used. In going to the ground,

he reiterated this statement to his second, adding, that as he and Mr.

Best were considered the two best shots in England, one of them must

fall; but, whatever was the issue of the affair, he begged him to bear

testimony that he acquitted Mr. Best of all blame. No remonstrance,

however, could induce him to withdraw the offensive expression.

They were placed at fifteen paces from each other. They fired together,

and Lord Camelford fell, to all appearance dead. In an instant, however,

he recovered the shock, so far as to exclaim, “I am killed! but I acquit

Best. I alone am to blame.” He begged them to consult their safety. When

a labourer, who was working in an adjoining garden, repaired to the

spot, he found Lord Camelford lying on his back, in the lower part of

the field, which was overflowed, to the depth of several inches in

water. Captain Best and his friend had rode off directly after the shot

took effect, and the other gentleman followed their example, immediately

on the countryman’s coming up, on the pretence of going for a surgeon.

His Lordship was unwilling to be removed, and it was with difficulty

that those who came to his assistance got him placed in a chair, and

conveyed to Mr. Ottey’s, at Little Holland House. His adversary’s ball

had penetrated his right breast, and was supposed to have passed through

the lungs and lodged in the back bone. When questioned as to the names

of the other gentlemen who had accompanied him, he declined giving any

satisfaction on the subject.

Lord Camelford, by his will, peremptorily forbad his relatives and

friends from prosecuting his antagonist, declaring that the combat was

of his own seeking. The day previous to his death he added a codicil to

his will, in which, after stating that persons have in general a strong

attachment to the country which gave them birth, and on their death-beds

usually desire that their remains may be conveyed to their native land,

however great the distance, to be interred, he continued:—“I wish my

body to be removed, as soon as may be convenient, to a country far

distant, to a spot not near the haunts of men, but where the surrounding

scenery may smile upon my remains.” The place he chose was situated on

the borders of the Lake of St. Lampierre, in the canton of Berne, and

three trees stood on the particular spot. The centre tree he desired

might be taken up, and his body being there deposited, immediately

replaced. “Let no monument or stone be placed over my grave.” At the

foot of this tree, his Lordship added, he formerly passed many solitary

hours, contemplating the mutability of human affairs. As a compensation

to the proprietors of the spot, he left them one thousand pounds. He

also requested his relations not to go into mourning for him. At the

period of the duel Lord Camelford and Mr. Best had a bet of two hundred

pounds depending, as to which of them was the better shot.

The following account of this pest to society is given by one of his

biographers; but we must hope, for the sake of mankind, that the

intellects of this desperate nobleman were occasionally deranged:—

“His character was a curious mixture of much that was virtuous and much

that was vicious: all in extremes. With chivalrous notions of

punctilious honour, and with an irascible temper, which brought him into

many broils, he was warm in his affections, and almost unexampled in his

benevolence. Disdaining all luxuries, in his own manner of life, he

sought for opportunities of dispensing his fortune in acts of genuine

charity, and conferred the most liberal favours with a secrecy that

ennobled the gift. He did not distribute less than four thousand pounds

per annum in the purchase of commissions for gallant young men, who had

not the means of buying them, and in the relief of decayed seamen and

soldiers. If many of his political proceedings were characterised with

imprudence, no one could doubt they sprang from patriotism. He was a man

whose real character was to the world but little known; his

imperfections and his follies were often brought before the public, but

his counterbalancing virtues were seldom heard of. Though too violent to

those whom he imagined to have wronged him, yet to his acquaintance he

was gentle, affable, and courteous; a stern adversary, but the mildest

and most generous of friends. He was often the dupe of the designing and

crafty supplicant, but he was more often the soother of real sorrow and

unmerited woe.”

That such might have been his private character is most decidedly to be

hoped; but most unquestionably, his public character rendered him a

nuisance to society, and whoever did rid the world of such a murderous

and (in matters of blood) unprincipled ruffian, was entitled to public

thanks. Priding himself on his superiority in pistol practice, he sought

for quarrels on every possible occasion. His dress, more especially in

uniform, was such as to excite remark and observation, which he would

gladly seize upon to fight a duel. He was even known to treat his horses

in the streets of London in the most cruel manner, for the mere purpose

of drawing forth some remonstrance or remark which he could consider an

insult, and justify a murder. He died as he had lived, a blood-thirsty

monster. He sought to deprive a bosom friend of life, although he was

conscious of the falsehood of his own assertions, solely because he

wished to display his superiority as a shot, and endeavoured to

sacrifice a companion whom he esteemed, for a miserable woman whom he

despised. His previous conduct towards Paterson was not justifiable

under any circumstances of discipline, since he had the means of

bringing him to condign punishment without being his executioner.

He was attended in the course of the day by Mr. Heaviside, Mr. Thomson,

and Mr. Horne, surgeons. A Mr. Nihell, or Nield, we understand, was

second to Captain Best, and the Hon. Mr. Devereux was second to Lord

Camelford.

The following is a further account of his death, as it appeared in one

of the papers of the day:—

March 12.

On Saturday evening this unfortunate nobleman breathed his last. He sent

for his solicitor, Mr. Wilson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and made his

will the night after the accident; and maintained the most perfect

composure under his sufferings to the last.

In the voluminous evidence adduced before the coroner’s inquest, it was

proved, that Lord Camelford had declared,—that he was the aggressor,

that he forgave the gentleman who had shot him, and that he hoped God

would forgive him too.

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

observations:—

“It was evident the deceased had been killed by a shot fired at him by

some person, of whose identity the jury had no direct or admissible

proof. The laws of this country admitted of no excuse for one man

killing another in a private duel. But, supposing the person who had

slain the deceased to be able, before a superior tribunal, to offer

circumstances and facts in palliation of his offence, they could not

have any weight in this inquest. He had, strictly speaking, been guilty

of murder, and to that effect must necessarily be the verdict of the

jury. In the present case, there was no doubt of the deceased having

been feloniously killed; but there was no evidence who was the

principal, or who were the seconds. In point of fact, they were all

equally guilty; for, in the crime of murder, accessories before the fact

were considered as principals. There was hardly a doubt that the

expressions and avowal of the deceased, so honourably made in favour of

his opponent, would, if the latter were arraigned in a superior court,

induce his acquittal; but that was a consideration which ought not to

operate on the minds of those whom he was addressing. Had the parties

been in a room; and upon a sudden quarrel had the deceased, having given

the first provocation, been killed, it might have been justifiable

homicide; but, on the contrary, it appeared, they had deliberately gone

out to commit an unjustifiable act. Had it been proved who the person

was who fired the shot at the deceased, the jury would have been bound

to have returned a verdict of “murder” against him, and those who were

aiding and abetting him; but, as the case stood, they would only

pronounce the verdict to which he had alluded.

The jury unanimously returned a verdict of “wilful murder, or felonious

homicide, by some person or persons unknown.”

BETWEEN ENSIGN BROWNE AND LIEUT. BUTLER.

January 1, 1806.

This morning a meeting took place in a piece of ground, in the parish of

Basford, between Ensign Browne, of the 36th regiment of Foot, and

Lieutenant Butler, of the 83d Regiment, on the recruiting service, at

Nottingham.

The parties fired together by signal, when, unfortunately, Ensign Browne

was shot through the heart, and instantly expired, without uttering a

word.

Lieutenant Butler and the seconds immediately withdrew. The body of the

deceased was taken to Basford church, by some persons who were attracted

to the spot by the report of the pistols; and a verdict of “wilful

murder” was returned by the coroner’s jury who sat upon it.

Ensign Browne was a promising young officer, of a very respectable

family in Ireland, and had only just attained his seventeenth year. He

and Lieutenant Butler belonged, lately, to the same regiment; but from a

serious disagreement which took place between them, the

Commander-in-chief ordered them to be placed in different corps. On

their meeting at Nottingham, however, the embers of animosity rekindled,

and the unhappy result has proved the loss to society of a valuable and

much respected young member.

BETWEEN MAJOR BROOKES AND COLONEL BOLTON.

January 4, 1806.

About a year ago a duel was to have taken place at Liverpool, between

Major Brookes and Colonel Bolton, in consequence of a quarrel; but the

affair being known, they were bound over to keep the peace for one year.

After this, the animosity between them increased daily, and each

reproached the other with having informed the officers of justice of

their intention to fight.

The time for which they were bound over to keep the peace elapsed on

Friday week, when a challenge passed, and an immediate meeting was

determined upon. They met, and at the first fire Major Brookes was

killed on the spot. The Colonel absconded.

BETWEEN LIEUT. TURRENS AND MR. FISHER.

March 22, 1806.

A duel was fought on Galleywood Common, near Chelmsford, Essex, between

Lieutenant Turrens and Mr. Fisher, both of the 6th regiment of Foot, in

barracks there. The parties with their seconds arrived on the spot

appointed for the encounter at daybreak, when the preliminaries having

been settled, they took a short distance, and turning round, fired at

the same instant. The Lieutenant received his antagonist’s ball in the

groin, and immediately fell. On which Mr. Fisher went up and took him by

the hand, expressing much regret at the lamentable consequence that had

ensued, as, from the nature of the wound, he was apprehensive it would

prove mortal.

Assistance having been procured, the wounded gentleman was removed to a

windmill at a short distance, and as soon as possible, conveyed from

thence to his apartments in the barracks, where every attention was

rendered that his unfortunate situation could require. The ball having

lodged on the side opposite to which it entered, was extracted by Dr.

Welch, at four o’clock the same afternoon, but he expired between nine

and ten o’clock on Sunday morning. An inquisition was taken by J. O.

Parker, jun., Esq., coroner, on view of the body, on Monday, and a

verdict returned of “wilful murder” against Mr. Fisher and the two

seconds, one of whom is under arrest. Mr. Fisher and the other have

absconded.

BETWEEN MR. ROGERS AND MR. LONG.

Dublin, May 3, 1806.

This day a duel was fought in Foster Avenue, between two young gentlemen

of the Barrack-office, in this city, and intimate friends, upon occasion

of a tavern quarrel the preceding evening.

On the first fire, at the distance of eleven paces, both parties fell;

the one, Mr. Rogers, received a ball through his heart, and of course

died instantly. The other, Mr. Long, was shot through both his thighs,

and is also since dead.

BETWEEN BARON HOMPESCH AND MR. RICHARDSON.

Sept. 22, 1806.

A duel was fought this morning between Baron Hompesch and a Mr.

Richardson, of Colchester, in consequence of the Baron, who is

near-sighted, running against Mr. Richardson and two ladies in the

street. On the exchange of the third pistol Mr. Richardson was shot

through the body.

BETWEEN SIR FRANCIS BURDETT AND MR. PAULL.

May 5, 1807.

On account of a misunderstanding between Sir Francis Burdett and Mr.

Paull, a meeting took place at nine o’clock this morning, near Wimbledon

Common. Mr. Paull conceiving his character very injuriously reflected

upon by Sir Francis, despatched a challenge, late on Friday night, to

the Baronet, which being accepted, the parties met early yesterday

morning at Coombe Wood, near Wimbledon Common.

They discharged two pistols each. The second shot, fired by Mr. Paull,

wounded Sir Francis in the thigh; the second pistol, fired by Sir

Francis, wounded Mr. Paull in the leg. Sir Francis returned home in the

same carriage with Mr. Paull.

* * * * *

The following is the truly amusing account given of this duel by Mr.

Bellenden Ker, and shows the necessity of selecting proper seconds on

such occasions:—

On Saturday morning. May 5, about half-past five o’clock, Sir Francis

Burdett’s servant came to me with a note from Sir Francis, desiring me

to come to him instantly to Wimbledon, with a pair of pistols, as he had

been called upon; but did not say by whom. I could procure none, after

trying at two officers of the Guards, and at Manton’s, but found none

fit for the purpose. It occurring to me that going thus from place to

place for pistols, might at last be the occasion of bringing on more

notice than I wished, I determined to proceed without them, thinking

that those who called upon him must have a pair at least; and that if it

was necessary they might serve both parties. I arrived at Sir Francis

Burdett’s house, at Wimbledon, about eight o’clock, having been obliged

to wait more than two hours for a chaise. He was gone on to the King’s

Arms, Kingston, having left a note for me to follow him there in his

carriage. On entering Kingston, I saw Mr. Paull in a coach, accompanied

by another person, and a servant on the coach seat. He called out to me

on passing his carriage, and said something that I did not distinctly

hear; but I think he advised me not to proceed into the town, as the

affair would be blown. I asked him where the inn was, and went on.

As soon as I entered the room where Burdett was sitting, a person

appeared, who had followed me. On his entrance I asked Burdett who he

was. He said it was Paull’s second. I then said, “Whom have I the honour

to address?” “My name is Cooper.” “Do you know him, Burdett?” “I have no

doubt Mr. Paull has appointed a proper person to meet me.” “Sir, sir,

sir,” was Mr. Cooper’s answer. I then said, as Burdett desired, that we

should immediately follow them, if they proceeded to Coombe Wood, which

seemed to be a proper place for meeting.

After Burdett had given me some letters and memorandums for different

friends, and explained to me the subject of Mr. Paull’s demands, we

proceeded to the place appointed; where, ordering the carriages to stop

for us, we went into the wood to a considerable distance. I fixed on a

proper spot. During our walk Mr. Paull frequently addressed me on the

subject of the quarrel. He said he was sure I had not heard it rightly

stated, and wished me much to hear him. I always replied that I had

heard the whole from my principal, and that I placed implicit confidence

in what he said; for if I could not have done that, I should not have

accompanied him there; and that, from all I heard and read concerning

the matter, it was my decided opinion that Burdett was the person most

entitled to consider himself as ill-used; but that, at all events, an

apology from him was out of all question, and that I would rather see

him shot than advise him to so disgraceful an act. As Mr. Paull did not

seem to have at all placed his opinions, or case, in the hands of his

second, I found it in vain to talk to him on the subject of an

accommodation. After we had stopped, I asked for the pistols, which were

produced by Mr. Cooper, who declared that he had not expected things

would have taken this turn. I asked him if he expected I should advise,

or Burdett would consent to disgrace himself. I then told him we had

been unable to obtain pistols, and expected he would consent, as well as

Mr. Paull, that we should use one of theirs. To this they both agreed.

He (Mr. Cooper) told me he did not know how to load them; I showed him

how, and directed him to load Burdett’s while I loaded Mr. Paull’s. I

then asked him what distance he proposed them to stand at; he said he

knew nothing about the matter, and left it to me. I measured out twelve

paces, and placed the principals at the extremities of the space. I then

directed him to give Sir Francis a pistol, and I presented another to

Mr. Paull, at the same time assuring him, as I had Mr. Cooper, that Sir

Francis came there without the slightest animosity against Mr. Paull;

but that he would fire at him as a mode of self-defence. I said besides

to Mr. Paull,—that I hoped he was thoroughly convinced that the injury

he had received was of a nature not to be satisfied with anything short

of attempting the life of my friend, and risking his own. He replied,—he

must do so, unless he had an apology.

I then asked them if they would agree to fire by a signal I would make

by dropping my handkerchief? They each did agree to it. I placed myself

about four yards on one side the centre of the space between them; while

Mr. Cooper, on giving the pistol to Sir Francis, retreated very

precipitately behind a tree at some distance. On a signal being made,

they fired together, but without effect. I then took Mr. Paull’s pistol

from him, and said, “I hope, Sir, you are now satisfied.” He said, “No;

I must have an apology, or proceed.” I said, “To talk of an apology is

absurd, and quite out of all question.” I then reloaded the pistols, and

gave them as before. I again addressed Mr. Paull as I had at first. He

answered with warmth,—that he must have an apology, or proceed; and

called God to witness that he was the most injured man on earth. Mr.

Cooper was then to make the signal; but he stood so far out of the way,

that Sir Francis could not see him, although he had already called to

him during his retreat, and begged him not to go so far off, and to come

forward, or words to that effect. At last I saw Sir Francis could not

see Mr. Cooper, nor his signal; and upon his making it, I called out,

“Fire,” to Sir Francis as soon as I saw Mr. Paull raise his pistol. They

did so together, I believe, upon my uttering the words.

I should observe, that while they were waiting for the signal, I

observed that Sir Francis held his arm raised, and his pistol pointed

towards Mr. Paull. Knowing this was not with a view of taking any unfair

advantage, but the effect of accident, I said, “Burdett, don’t take aim.

I am sure you are not doing so; drop your arm, as you see Mr. Paull has

his pistol pointed downwards.” Mr. Paull then asked me, why I advised

Sir Francis not to take aim. I said—anybody might see that I could only

mean for him not to take aim, or prepare to do so, before the signal,

and from a desire to see that they were upon equal terms. The

consequences of the second shots have been already described. After

speaking to each of them, I set off for the carriages. Both were put

into Mr. Paull’s. I went on to Sir Francis Burdett’s house, to Lady

Burdett and his brother; and also to procure a surgeon at Wimbledon.

During the transaction not one word passed between me and Sir Francis,

except what I said about taking aim. Mr. Cooper has constantly refused

to sign any official account, to say where he lives, or what is his

situation; which also was repeatedly requested of him before me; nor do

I at this moment know anything further about him.

JOHN BELLENDEN KER.

BETWEEN MAJOR CAMPBELL AND CAPTAIN BOYD.

August 1808.

_Trial of Major Campbell, of the 21st Regiment._

Alexander Campbell, Brevet-Major in the army, and a Captain in the 21st

regiment, stood indicted for the “wilful and felonious murder” of

Alexander Boyd, a captain in the said regiment, by shooting him, the

said Alexander Boyd, with a pistol bullet.

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

George Adams, who stated, that he had been assistant surgeon in the 21st

Regiment, since April twelvemonths. He knew Major Campbell and Captain

Boyd. In the year 1807 they were quartered in the barracks, in the

county of Armagh side of Newry. On the 23rd of the said month, Captain

Boyd died of a wound he received by a pistol bullet, which penetrated

the extremity of the four false ribs, and lodged in the cavity of the

belly. On that day the regiment was inspected by General Kerr; and,

after the inspection, the General and officers messed together. About

eight o’clock all the officers left the mess, except Major Campbell,

Captain Boyd, witness, and a Lieutenant Hall. A conversation then

commenced by Major Campbell stating, that General Kerr corrected him,

that day, about a particular mode of giving a word of command, when he

conceived he gave it right. He mentioned how he gave it, and how the

General had corrected him. Captain Boyd remarked, that neither was

correct according to Dundas, which was the King’s order. (This

observation, witness stated, was made in the usual mode of

conversation.) Major Campbell said, “it might not be according to the

King’s order, but still he conceived it was not incorrect.” Captain Boyd

still insisted it was not correct, according to the King’s order. They

argued this some time, till Captain Boyd said,—he knew it as well as any

man. Major Campbell replied,—he doubted that much. Captain Boyd at

length said,—he knew it better than he, let him take that as he liked.

Major Campbell then got up and said, “Then, Captain Boyd, do you say

that I am wrong?” Captain Boyd replied, “I do. I know I am right by the

King’s orders.” Major Campbell then quitted the room. Captain Boyd

remained after him for some time. He left the room before the witness or

Lieutenant Hall; but no observation was made on his going, more than on

that of any other gentleman that had dined there. The witness and

Lieutenant Hall went out together in a short time after. They went to a

second mess-room, and there Captain Boyd came and spoke to them. (The

conversation was not admitted in evidence, as Major Campbell was not

present at it.) They then went out together, and the witness left

Captain Boyd at Lieutenant Dewar’s. In about twenty minutes after he was

called upon to visit Captain Boyd. He went, and found him on a chair

vomiting. He examined his wound, and found it a very dangerous one. He

survived it but eighteen hours. He stayed with him till he died, during

which time he got gradually worse.

On his cross-examination he stated, that there was something irritating

in Captain Boyd’s manner of making the observation alluded to; so much

so, that he conceives Major Campbell could not, consistently with his

feelings, pass it over. But, if a candid explanation had taken place, he

did not conceive the melancholy affair would have occurred.

John Hoey stated, That he is mess-waiter for the 21st Regiment, and was

so then. He remembers the night this affair took place. Knew Major

Campbell and Captain Boyd. He saw Major Campbell that night in a room

where he was washing glasses. Major Campbell had quitted the room ten or

fifteen minutes. As Major Campbell was coming up stairs, Captain Boyd

was leaving the mess-room, and they met on the stair-head. Both went

into the mess-waiter’s room, and there remained ten or fifteen minutes,

when they separated. The prisoner, in about twenty minutes, came again

to the witness, and desired him to go to Captain Boyd, and tell him a

gentleman wished to speak to him, if he pleased. He accordingly went in

search of Captain Boyd. He found him on the parade ground. He delivered

the message, and Captain Boyd accompanied him to the mess-room. No one

was there. The witness pointed to a little room off it, as the room the

gentleman was in. He then went to the mess-kitchen, and in eight or ten

minutes he heard the report of a shot; thought nothing of it till he

heard another. He then went to the mess-room, and there saw Captain Boyd

and Lieutenants Hall and Macpherson. Captain Boyd was sitting on a chair

vomiting. Major Campbell was gone, but in about ten or twelve minutes he

came to the room where the witness was washing some glasses. Major

Campbell asked for candles. He got a pair, and brought them into the

small room. Major Campbell showed the witness the corners of the room,

in which each person stood, which distance measured seven paces. He

never saw Major Campbell after, till a week ago, though the witness

never quitted the regiment, and retained his employment.

John Macpherson stated, That he is Lieutenant in the said regiment. Knew

Major Campbell and Captain Boyd. Recollects the day of the duel. On the

evening of that day, going up stairs about nine o’clock, he heard, as he

thought, Major Campbell say, “On the word of a dying man, is everything

fair?” He got up before Captain Boyd replied;—he said, “Campbell, you

have hurried me; you’re a bad man.” Witness was in coloured clothes, and

Major Campbell did not know him, but said again, “Boyd, before this

stranger and Lieutenant Hall, was everything fair?” Captain Boyd

replied, “O my Campbell! you know I wanted you to wait, and have

friends!” Major Campbell then said, “Good God! will you mention before

these gentlemen, was not everything fair? Did not you say, you were

ready?” Captain Boyd answered, “Yes;” but in a moment after said,

“Campbell, you are a bad man.” Captain Boyd was helped into the next

room, and Major Campbell followed, much agitated, and repeatedly said to

Captain Boyd, “that he (Boyd) was the happiest man of the two.”—“I am,”

said Major Campbell, “an unfortunate man, but I hope not a bad one.”

Major Campbell asked Captain Boyd if he forgave him? He stretched out

his hand and said, “I forgive you; I feel for you, and I am sure you do

for me.” Major Campbell then left the room.

Duncan Dewar, Adjutant of the regiment, who was with Captain Boyd for

some time after he was wounded, was produced to show Captain Boyd’s firm

conviction that he would die in consequence of that wound, in order to

let in his declaration then made as evidence. But Captain Boyd not

having (before him) expressed such a conviction, that evidence failed.

Surgeon W. J. Nice was produced to the same point, and likewise failed.

Colonel Paterson, of the 21st Regiment, was produced to the same point,

and also failed.

George Sutherland, Quarter-master of the same regiment, was produced to

the same point. He stated that he saw him ten minutes before he died. He

was in bed, agitated with pain, in his senses, but rolling in the bed.

He did not, however, say to him that he thought he was dying.

Upon this, a special verdict was directed to the jury, to inquire

whether Captain Boyd, ten minutes before his death, and under the

circumstances stated, must or must not have known he was dying. After

some short deliberation, they found for the affirmative of this issue

(that he must have known it). The declaration was then admitted; but

none could be proved within that space, except his asking for Major

Campbell, and his saying, “Poor man, I am sorry for him.”

John Greenhill was produced merely to prove, that Major Campbell had

time to cool after the altercation took place; inasmuch as he went home,

drank tea with his family, and gave him a box to leave with Lieutenant

Hall, before the affair took place.

Here the prosecution closed.

The defence set up was merely and exclusively the character of the

prisoner, for humanity, peaceable conduct, and proper behaviour. To

this, several officers of the highest rank were produced, who vouched

for it to the fullest extent; namely, Colonel Paterson, of the 21st

Regiment, General Campbell, General Graham Sterling, Captain Macpherson,

Captain Menzies, and Colonel Grey: many others were in attendance whom

it was unnecessary to produce.

The learned judge charged the jury in the most able manner,

recapitulated the evidence, and explained the law on the subject most

fully and clearly. The jury retired, and in about half an hour brought

in a verdict, “Guilty of murder;” but recommended him to mercy, on the

score of character only.

He was sentenced to be executed on Monday, but respited to Wednesday

se’nnight.

And this respite was obtained by the greatest exertion. Mrs. Campbell,

who was tenderly attached to her husband, having resolved to proceed to

London, and solicit the Royal mercy, hastened to the sea-coast, but

found that unexpected circumstances threatened to frustrate her fondest

hopes. It blew a perfect hurricane, and no reward could tempt the

captain of any vessel to venture to sea. While she was running up and

down the shore in a distracted state, she met a few humble fishermen;

and these poor fellows no sooner heard the cause of her agony than they

offered her their service and their boat, in which she actually crossed

the channel. Her noble companions not only refused to receive any

reward, but attended her to the coach-office, and followed her several

miles on the road, praying God to bless her, and grant her success.

On arriving at Windsor with her petition it was past eight o’clock, and

the King had retired to his apartment; but the Queen, compassionating

the afflicted wife, presented the memorial that night, and Mrs. Campbell

received the kindest attention from the whole of the Royal family.

The case was anxiously debated in the council; but, after a full review

of the circumstances, it was finally resolved that the law should take

its course. Mrs. Campbell in the mean time proceeded to Scotland,

cheered with the hope of obtaining, at least another respite. She

reached Ayr, her paternal home, on the very morning that her husband’s

corpse was brought thither to be interred.

When Major Campbell heard that his fate was decided, he prepared to meet

death with the fortitude of the soldier and the resignation of the

Christian. A change had come over the public mind, and universal sorrow

for his fate had taken place of the prejudices which inaccurate reports

of the duel had produced. By a strange concurrence of circumstances, his

own regiment mounted guard round the scaffold. A vast multitude occupied

every spot from which a view of the place of execution could be

obtained. The crowd displayed the unusual show of all the gentry from

the neighbouring country, assembled in deep mourning.

Precisely at noon Major Campbell appeared on the platform, supported by

his father-in-law. Instantly the brave highlanders took off their

military bonnets; and with streaming eyes, joined in prayer for the

spirit about to be parted from its mortal tenement. The vast crowd stood

uncovered in solemn silence, so that the grating of the falling drop was

heard to the remotest extremity. One groan from the thousands of

spectators, for an instant broke the profound silence, and proclaimed

that all was over! His body, after having been suspended the usual time,

was put into a hearse in waiting, which left the town immediately,

escorted by Dr. Bowie, for Ayr in Scotland, to be interred in the family

vault.

Major Campbell, in his conversation with his intimate friends,

previously to surrendering himself, had always said, that if he were

convicted of murder, he should suffer, as an example to duellists in

Ireland; but it was always his opinion that a jury would not convict him

of murder.

It has been erroneously stated, that the jury recommended the deceased,

merely from his universal good character; but the jury recommended him

in consequence of the duel having been a fair one; although, by the

direction of the judge, they were bound, on their oaths, to convict the

prisoner of murder. Major Campbell, previously to his death, observed,

that life was not an object so dear to him, as the reflection was

distressing, that his children and family should bear the stigma, that

he was executed for murder.

Major Campbell made his escape from Ireland after the duel, and lived

with his family, under a fictitious name, for several months, at Chelsea

(the duel took place in June 1807); but his mind became so uneasy that

he at last determined to surrender himself, be the result what it might.

His surrender, instead of being viewed as the result of penitence and

sorrow, was regarded by too many as a mockery and a braving of justice.

Utterly false as such a view of the case was, Campbell confirmed the

prejudice against him by incautiously declaring, that he was sure the

verdict could only be manslaughter. The misrepresentation of these

words, as has been said, produced a strong effect on the minds of the

presbyterians of Armagh. His modest and contrite deportment on his

trial, and the excellent character given him by officers of the highest

rank, went far towards turning the tide in his favour; but one of the

witnesses for the defence is said to have exhibited a dictatorial air,

as if his simple word would, or ought to decide the verdict; and this

circumstance, it is reported, had a fatal influence.

He was first cousin to the Earl of Breadalbane, a man esteemed and

beloved by all his friends. It is superfluous to add, that Mrs. Campbell

was a most amiable woman. She had four infant children.

The unfortunate catastrophe, which produced such an awful result to

Major Campbell, it is hoped will not fail to leave a lesson to mankind

of salutary influence. Both of the parties were gentlemen, eminent in

their profession, of high character and honour, who had long lived on

terms of mutual friendship and esteem. The unfortunate irritation of a

moment, at once deprived society of one of the best of men, and left a

widow and infant family to mourn their irreparable loss. Retribution of

the most awful kind fell to the lot of the other; and his amiable widow

and helpless family were also involved in all the distress which the

human mind can conceive.

From the period of the unhappy event to the closing of the tragic scene,

Major Campbell evinced the most heartfelt grief for what had happened to

his friend.

BETWEEN LORD PAGET AND THE HON. CAPT. CADOGAN.

May, 1809.

In order to prevent the appearance in the papers of any mis-statement

respecting the duel which took place this morning between Lord Paget and

Captain Cadogan, we, the respective friends of the parties, feel it

incumbent on us to submit the following as the correct statement of the

event as it occurred:—

In consequence of a challenge having been received by Lord Paget from

Captain Cadogan, and every attempt to prevent a meeting having failed,

the parties, attended by their respective friends, Captain Cadogan by

Captain Mackenzie of the navy, Lord Paget by Lieut.-Colonel Vivian of

the 7th Light Dragoons, met, as agreed, at seven o’clock, on Wimbledon

Common. The ground having been taken at twelve paces distance, they were

directed to fire together. Captain Cadogan fired; Lord Paget’s pistol

flashed. This having been decided to go for fire, a question arose

whether Lord Paget had taken aim, as if intending to hit his antagonist.

Both the seconds being clearly of opinion that such was not his

intention (although the degree of obliquity he gave to the direction of

the pistol was such as to have been discovered only by particular

observation), Captain Mackenzie stated to Captain Cadogan, that as it

appeared to be Lord Paget’s intention not to fire at him, he could not

admit of the affair proceeding any farther. Lieut.-Colonel Vivian then

asked Captain Cadogan whether he had not himself observed that Lord

Paget had not aimed at him, to which he replied in the affirmative.

Captain Mackenzie then declared his determination not to remain any

longer in the field, to witness any further act of hostility on the part

of Captain Cadogan. Captain Cadogan replied, that of course his conduct

must be decided by his second; declaring, at the same time, that he had

come prepared for the fall of one of the parties. On Captain Mackenzie

and Lieut.-Colonel Vivian making it known to Lord Paget, that as he

evidently did not intend to fire at Captain Cadogan, the affair could go

no farther; his lordship replied, “As such is your determination, I have

now no hesitation in saying, that nothing could ever have induced me to

add to the injuries I have already done the family, by firing at the

brother of Lady Charlotte Wellesley.” The parties then left the ground.

(Signed) R. H. VIVIAN.

GEORGE CHARLES MACKENZIE.

The cause of the above duel is well known. It arose from the seduction

of the lady of the Hon. Henry Wellesley (sister of Captain Cadogan) by

Lord Paget. Her husband afterwards gained 20,000_l._ damages in the

Sheriff’s Court.

BETWEEN LORD CASTLEREAGH AND MR. CANNING.

Sept. 21, 1809.

A duel took place early this morning between Lord Castlereagh and Mr.

Canning, in which the latter received a wound in the left thigh; but

happily it is not dangerous, being merely a flesh wound.

The meeting took place at Putney Heath. Lord Yarmouth seconded Lord

Castlereagh, and Mr. R. Ellis accompanied Mr. Canning. We understand

they fired by signal, at the distance of ten yards. The first missed;

and no explanation taking place, they fired a second time, when Mr.

Canning was wounded in the left thigh, on the outer side of the bone;

and thus the affair terminated. He was put into a coach, and conveyed to

Gloucester Lodge, his newly purchased seat at Brompton, and Lord

Castlereagh returned to his house in St. James’s-square.

The circumstances of this celebrated political duel were the

following:—“It had been long reported that there were divisions in the

Duke of Portland’s cabinet, and that a change in some of the highest

offices of State would take place. These divisions became public in the

latter end of September, when Lord Castlereagh, then Secretary of War,

sent a challenge to Mr. Canning, who held the seals of the foreign

office.

Lord Castlereagh’s complaint was, that, they being both members of the

cabinet, Mr. Canning had applied clandestinely to get him removed from

office, for the purpose of bringing in the Marquis Wellesley in his

place. Before Easter, it was affirmed, he made this application to the

Duke of Portland, and obtained his promise that Lord Castlereagh should

be removed from office. “Notwithstanding this promise,” said Castlereagh

in his letter which accompanied the challenge, “by which I consider you

presumed it unfit that I should remain charged with the conduct of the

war, and by which my situation as a minister of the Crown was made

dependent on your will and pleasure, you continued to sit in the same

cabinet with me, and left me not only in the persuasion that I possessed

your confidence and support as a colleague, but allowed me, in breach of

every principle of good faith, both public and private, to originate and

proceed in a new enterprise of the most arduous and important nature

(the Walcheren expedition), with your apparent concurrence and

ostensible approbation. You are fully aware that, if my situation in the

Government had been disclosed to me, I could not have submitted to

remain one moment in office, without the entire abandonment of private

honour and public duty. You knew I _was_ deceived, and you _continued_

to deceive me.”

Without presuming to cast any unfavourable imputation on the well-earned

fame of Mr. Canning, it cannot be denied that, if Lord Castlereagh’s

statement was correct, Mr. Canning’s conduct was most unjustifiable,

both on public and on private grounds—both as a statesman and a

gentleman. If he considered Lord Castlereagh as unfit to manage the

important charge with which he was entrusted, and indeed the Walcheren

expedition alluded to afforded a convincing proof of the correctness of

his opinion, it was his duty not to remain with him in the cabinet one

single hour, if he could not overrule his proposals; but to coincide in

a project which he condemned, and to continue to act in conjunction with

a minister whose removal he had urged on the plea of incapacity, was an

act most unaccountable on the part of Mr. Canning, and only tends to

show, that men placed in a public situation will be guilty of acts which

they would scorn, as dishonourable, in the common affairs of life.

BETWEEN MR. GEORGE PAYNE AND MR. CLARK.

Sept. 6, 1810.

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

gentlemen.

At half-past five o’clock three post-chaises were noticed passing over

Putney Bridge, and at half-past six, one of the chaises returned to the

Red Lion, at Putney, with a wounded gentleman, of the name of Payne. Mr.

Heaviside was sent for, and found that a pistol ball had gone through

the groin. The unfortunate gentleman died at half-past four o’clock the

same afternoon.

Mr. George Payne was the younger son of the late Renè Payne, Esq., and

he left him his fortune, to the amount of 14,000_l._ per annum. In that

settlement, the whole now goes to his eldest son, except 500_l._ a year

to his widow, and 10,000_l._ to his younger children. Mr. Payne has left

four children by his wife, who was a Miss Gray.

The cause of the fatal duel is truly melancholy. The challenge took

place about ten days ago, at Scarborough, but the quarrel was of a more

distant date. The orphan daughter of the late Dr. Clark, of Newcastle,

was the friend of Mrs. Payne, and a visitor in the family. An

unfortunate attachment took place between Mr. Payne and Miss Clark,

which transpiring, the irritated feelings of the brother induced him to

resent it. Every means were tried by Mr. John Payne, the elder brother

of the deceased, to avert the catastrophe, but in vain.

Mr. George Payne was most exemplary in all his conduct through life,

except in this fatal attachment. He was a most liberal and a most

amiable man. He had whispered to his second, Mr. Abbott, that he should

not return Mr. Clark’s fire, but the first shot was mortal. Mr. Clark

has effected his escape.

BETWEEN CAPT. BOARDMAN AND ENSIGN DE BETTON.

March 4, 1811.

In consequence of a trifling quarrel, a duel took place at Barbadoes, on

the 15th of January, between Captain Boardman, of the second battalion

of the 60th regiment, and Ensign De Betton, of the Royal West India

Rangers, in which, at the first fire, the former was shot through the

heart, and instantly expired. The survivor immediately escaped from the

island.

BETWEEN MR. COLCLOUGH AND MR. ALCOCK.

In the preceding year, another fatal duel, of a political or rather an

electioneering nature, took place at Wexford. Mr. John Colclough, of

Trulom Abbey, had declared himself a candidate for the representation of

the county, which he had sat for in the previous parliament. For many

years certain noblemen had monopolised the representation of Wexford,

and Mr. Colclough determined on this occasion to put the sense of the

county to the proof, and therefore proposed Mr. Sheridan as joint

candidate with himself. With these gentlemen Mr. Alcock, supported by

the interest of certain influential electors, contested the county. The

election commenced, the poll proceeded, and the independent party was

rapidly advancing to success, when one of the most melancholy events

terminated the contest.

Several tenants of a person who had given his interest to Alcock,

absolutely refused to vote for that gentleman, declaring that, at every

risk, they would support Colclough and the “great Sheridan.” Mr.

Alcock’s partisans ascribed the conduct of these persons to seduction on

the part of Mr. Colclough. The latter protested in the most solemn

manner that he had not even solicited their votes. Alcock insisted that

they should not vote for him. “How can I prevent them?” naturally

replied Mr. Colclough. After much discussion Mr. Colclough was required

to decline the votes, or receive them at his peril. Of course he

disregarded this threat; open war ensued, and it was determined, that

before the opening of the next morning’s poll, the candidates should

decide by single combat the contested question.

Early on the following morning many hundred people assembled to witness

the affair, among whom were several magistrates. Both candidates were

remarkably near-sighted, and Mr. Alcock determined upon using

spectacles. This was resisted by the friends of Mr. Colclough, who would

not follow the example. The partisans of the former, however,

persevered, and he did wear them. The ground at length was marked, and

the anxious crowd separated on either side, as their party-feelings

prompted them. The seconds handed to each principal a couple of pistols,

and placing them about eight or nine steps asunder, withdrew. A dead

silence and a pause ensued—the crowd stood in motionless suspense—the

combatants presented—the word was given—Mr. Alcock fired first, and his

former friend and intimate companion fell shot through the heart, his

pistol exploding without effect.

The bystanders were almost petrified with horror, when on a sudden a

loud and horrible yell burst simultaneously from every quarter of the

field. Alcock was hurried by his friends from the ground; while those of

Colclough raised the body and mournfully bore it to his native home.

Within two hours after the fatal duel Mr. Alcock was returned _duly

elected_. At the next assizes he was tried for murder, before Baron

Smith, who openly declared against a capital conviction; and the jury,

without a moment’s hesitation, pronounced a verdict of not guilty.

The acquitted duellist, however, suffered much in mind, and ended his

days in a great measure deprived of his intellectual faculties. Two

other duels were fought on the same occasion, but with little injury.

To this melancholy affair there was another sad corollary: Miss Alcock

had known Colclough for a considerable time; she was an amiable and

sensible person—her brother’s absence, his trial, and his subsequent

depression deprived her also of her reason, and in this state she did

not long survive the dreadful fate of her brother and his friend.

BETWEEN MR. HARRISON AND ——.

May 9, 1811.

A duel was fought on Tuesday morning, at daybreak, in a field, about a

mile and a half from Totteridge, between two gentlemen, who had alighted

from post-chaises, at the King’s Arms public-house, near the spot. In an

hour after one of the parties was brought in mortally wounded in the

abdomen, and he died in four hours after. An inquest was held, and the

fact of the duel being proved by some husbandmen, a verdict of “wilful

murder” was returned. The body was owned after the inquest. The deceased

was a Mr. Harrison, a young man about twenty-two years of age.

BETWEEN LIEUT. STEWART AND LIEUT. BAGNALL.

October 7, 1812.

A fatal duel took place on South Sea Common, near Portsmouth. The

parties were Lieutenant Stewart and Lieutenant Bagnall, of the Royal

Marines, most intimate friends. The quarrel arose concerning a female,

with whom both were intimate.

At the first shot Lieutenant Stewart’s pistol missed fire. At the second

discharge, his ball entered behind Lieutenant Bagnall’s right shoulder.

Every attention was instantly procured, but the wounded man expired on

Saturday evening.

BETWEEN LIEUT. BLUNDELL AND MR. MAGUIRE.

July 12, 1813.

A duel was fought yesterday at Carisbrook Castle, Isle of Wight, at

half-past two o’clock, P.M. _agreeably to the written challenge of

Lieut. Blundell_, between that gentleman and Mr. Maguire, when at the

second discharge of pistols, Mr. B—— received a mortal wound, of which

he died two days after.

BETWEEN MR. O’CONNELL AND MR. D’ESTERRE.

February, 1815.

The following account is from the Freeman’s Journal of the 2nd of

February:—

A difference was adjusted yesterday, at Bishop’s Court, county Kildare,

which had agitated this city for several days.

At a meeting at Capel-street, on the Saturday previous to the late

Aggregate Meeting, Mr. O’Connell attended; and in illustrating some

matter which he was anxious to enforce, he alluded, in a contemptuous

manner, to the Corporation of Dublin. “The beggarly Corporation of

Dublin” was, it seems, one of the epithets of scorn used in reprobation

of this act. Mr. J. N. D’Esterre is a member of the Corporation; and

having seen this phrase, he addressed a letter on the 25th (the day

after the Aggregate Meeting) to Mr. O’Connell requiring to know whether

he was fairly reported. On the day after Mr. O’Connell sent an answer,

in which he said he would not avow nor disavow what had been reported in

the newspapers. But he added, that if Mr. D’Esterre wrote to him to know

his opinion of the Common Council of Dublin, as a body, he could easily

satisfy him by saying, that no expression which language could furnish

was sufficient to convey the sentiments of contempt he had for that

body. Mr. O’Connell, besides, requested that Mr. D’Esterre should

consider his answer as forming the close of the epistolary

correspondence on this topic.

On Friday, a letter was left in Merrion-square for Mr. O’Connell, during

his absence at the courts. Its direction was different from the former

one which came from Mr. D’Esterre; and Mr. James O’Connell, who had

instructions to open any communications that were directed to his

brother in his absence, ascertained the quarter from whence it came. He

sought merely for the signature, and on perceiving it to be Mr.

D’Esterre’s, he immediately closed the letter, and stated in a note to

Mr. D’Esterre the circumstances under which he opened it. He said he was

ignorant of its contents, not wishing, after the request his brother had

made on the day previous, to know anything more of Mr. D’Esterre’s

epistolary messages. He added, that his brother did not expect to hear a

second time from Mr. D’Esterre through the medium of _a letter_. Things

remained in this condition till Sunday last. On that day Mr. James

O’Connell received a note from Mr. D’Esterre, containing disrespectful

observations on himself and his brother. Immediately after the receipt

of it, he sent his friend, Captain O’Mullan, to Mr. D’Esterre to say,

that after he had adjusted his affair with his brother, he would bring

him to account for his conduct to himself peculiarly. Captain O’Mullan

at the same time intimated that Counsellor O’Connell was astonished at

not hearing, in what he conceived the _proper way_, from Mr. D’Esterre.

Nothing farther happened on Sunday; and on Monday morning Mr. Lidwell,

who remained here several days to be the friend of Mr. O’Connell, though

some members of his family were seriously indisposed, left town for

home, despairing of any issue being put to the controversy. Monday

passed on; and on Tuesday considerable sensation was created by a rumour

that Mr. D’Esterre was advised to go to the Four Courts to offer Mr.

O’Connell personal violence. Neither of the parties came in contact. But

it seems Mr. D’Esterre was met on one of the quays by Mr. Richard

O’Gorman, who remonstrated with him, by stating that he conceived he was

pursuing a very unusual sort of conduct. This occurred about three

o’clock; but no challenge followed. About four it was understood that

Mr. D’Esterre was in the streets; and Mr. O’Connell paraded about with

one or two friends, but did not come across his antagonist. A multitude

soon collected about him, among whom there could not be less than five

hundred gentlemen of respectability; and Mr. O’Connell then had no other

resource left, than to take refuge in a house in Exchequer-street. In a

short time Judge Day entered, in his magisterial capacity, to put him

under arrest. The hon. Justice said he would be satisfied if he had the

guarantee of Mr. O’Connell’s honour that he would proceed no farther in

the business. “It is not my business, Mr. Justice,” said Mr. O’Connell,

“to be the aggressor. Further, however, I must tell you, that no human

consideration will induce me to go.” The hon. Justice then retired; and

Mr. O’Connell shortly after repaired to Merrion-square. No challenge of

any kind grew out of Tuesday’s proceedings.

On Wednesday morning, however, it was at length intimated to Mr.

O’Connell that Mr. D’Esterre intended to call upon him for a meeting.

Twelve o’clock was fixed upon for the nomination of hour and place.

There was some overture made to enlarge the time, but Mr. O’Connell’s

friend would not consent. We should mention that his friend was Major

Macnamara, of Doolen, in the county of Clare, a Protestant gentleman

attached to no party, and of the highest respectability. The friend of

Mr. D’Esterre was Sir Edward Stanley.

After some discussion the parties fixed upon the place which we have

already mentioned. It is about twelve miles distant from this city, and

constitutes part of Lord Ponsonby’s demesne. The hour appointed was

half-past three o’clock. At three precisely (we can speak confidently,

for we now speak from personal knowledge), Mr. O’Connell, attended by

his second, Surgeon Macklin, and a number of friends, was on the ground.

About four, Mr. D’Esterre, attended only by Surgeon Peel, Sir Edward

Stanley (his second), and a Mr. D’Esterre, of Limerick, appeared. There

was some conversation between the seconds as to position, mode of fire,

&c.; which, added to other sources of delay, occupied forty minutes.

During this interval Mr. D’Esterre took occasion to say that his quarrel

with Mr. O’Connell was not of a religious nature. To the Catholics, or

their leaders, he said he had no animosity whatever.

At forty minutes past four the combatants were on the ground; they both

displayed the greatest coolness and courage. The friends of both parties

retired, and the combatants, having a pistol in each hand, with

directions to discharge them at their discretion, prepared to fire. They

levelled, and before the lapse of a second, both shots were heard. Mr.

D’Esterre’s was first, and missed. Mr. O’Connell’s followed

instantaneously, and took effect in the thigh of his antagonist, about

an inch below the hip. Mr. D’Esterre of course fell, and both the

surgeons hastened to him. They found that the ball had “traversed the

hip,” and could not be found. There was an immense effusion of blood.

All parties prepared to move towards home, and arrived in town before

eight o’clock.

It is said that Mr. D’Esterre’s wound is very dangerous; we sincerely

hope, however, that it will not prove mortal. The ball passed through

both thighs. There was a violent hæmorrhage of the bladder last night,

but it had ceased before morning.

We need not describe the emotions which burst forth all along the road,

when it was ascertained that Mr. O’Connell was safe.

Mr. D’Esterre died at five o’clock on the 3rd.

* * * * *

The particulars of this duel were reported as follows:—

The Dublin Corporation, at the period, was considered as the stronghold

of the Protestant ascendancy, and the hostility to what were called the

Catholic claims was carried to great excess. Mr. O’Connell, the champion

of his party, assumed a tone equally violent and acrimonious; and at a

meeting of the Catholics, held in Dublin, spoke of the corporation of

that city in the most contemptuous terms, and amongst other abusive

epithets, called it “a beggarly corporation,” an expression which soon

became a by-word with their opponents.

Mr. D’Esterre, a young man of great respectability and high spirit, felt

indignant at the reproach cast upon the body of which he was a member;

and there is reason to believe that his indignation was fanned by the

instigation of his colleagues, who were anxious to rid themselves of

such a formidable opponent as O’Connell. D’Esterre, therefore, addressed

a letter to O’Connell, to know whether he had used the expression which

the public papers attributed to him. O’Connell, in reply, neither

admitted nor disclaimed the alleged charge, but stated that no terms,

however reproachful, could exceed the contemptuous feelings he

entertained for the corporation as a public body. To this he added, that

his letter must close all correspondence on the subject. Mr. D’Esterre

was advised to address another letter to Mr. O’Connell, which was

returned unread, by that gentleman’s brother. Various reports were now

circulated, and it was stated that D’Esterre intended to offer O’Connell

personal violence, should he meet him in the streets. Thus did a week

pass, during which threats and violent language were exchanged between

the two hostile parties; and it was generally concluded that a duel

could not be avoided. Mr. George Lidwell, at Mr. O’Connell’s request,

had waited a few days in Dublin expecting a message from Mr. D’Esterre,

and at length Sir Edward Stanley, Barrack-master of Dublin, and a friend

of Mr. D’Esterre, waited on O’Connell with the hostile message so long

expected. The challenge was accepted, and the necessary arrangements

were made between Major Macnamara and Sir E. Stanley.

The parties met at Bishop’s Court demesne, Lord Ponsonby’s seat, in the

county Kildare, thirteen miles from Dublin. It is said that in the

meeting Mr. D’Esterre had been very disadvantageously placed by his

second, being in a line with a tree, which afforded direction to his

adversary’s aim.

BETWEEN COLONEL QUENTIN AND COLONEL PALMER.

February 9, 1815.

Colonel Palmer had been at Bourdeaux, and on his return to Paris, on

Thursday last, found that Mr. Lawrell (Colonel Quentin’s brother-in-law)

had left a card repeatedly at his hotel during his absence; in

consequence of which he immediately signified his arrival to that

gentleman. Mr. Lawrell soon after waited upon him with a challenge from

Colonel Quentin. The parties met: Colonel Quentin accompanied by his

relative, and Colonel Palmer by Mr. T. Thompson, member for Midhurst.

The distance measured was twelve paces; and the challenger, thinking

himself aggrieved, having given his first fire, Colonel Palmer showed

that he was influenced by no personal motive, by instantly discharging

his pistol in the air.

Mr. Lawrell and Colonel Quentin having thereupon, in answer to an

inquiry from Mr. Thompson, declared themselves perfectly satisfied, the

affair terminated, and the parties returned to Paris.

The Duke de Guiche and two French surgeons were on the ground.

BETWEEN MR. —— AND MR. ——.

Edinburgh, Feb. 18, 1815.

About three o’clock on Monday last, a duel was fought between two

gentlemen of this city, near to Caroline Park. Intimation of their

intention being given to the Sheriff, a warrant was issued for their

apprehension; but before the officers could reach the ground, the

parties had interchanged shots without effect. They and their seconds

were however taken into custody; and on inquiry into the circumstances

of the case, the cause of quarrel appeared so unsatisfactory, and the

whole proceeding of those concerned so very strange, that, besides

ordering them to find security to keep the peace, the Sheriff fined both

principals and seconds in twenty-five guineas each; and ordered the same

to be applied for the benefit of the Lunatic Asylum, as being, from its

nature, an institution best entitled to a fine derived from such a

source.

BETWEEN MAJOR HILLAS AND MR. THOMAS FENTON.

Towards the close of the same year, another fatal duel was fought in

Ireland. In the month of December, 1815, a vessel was cast ashore by

stress of weather upon the coast of Tirivagh, near the residence of

Major Hillas, who was an active magistrate, and a young man of the most

humane disposition. On hearing of the disaster, he immediately hastened

to the spot to discharge his duties, and to fulfil his natural

inclination. The captain, he found, had fallen overboard; and to his

exertions, during the entire of a dark stormy night, the safety of the

mate and eleven of the crew was chiefly to be attributed.

While Major Hillas was thus laudably engaged, Mr. John Fenton, a

neighbouring gentleman, came up, and interfered in a manner which

appeared to him highly incorrect; an altercation arose, which ended in

Mr. Fenton’s threatening to throw Major Hillas into the sea. He,

however, continued his exertions from the 6th to the 8th December, on

which day Mr. Fenton arrived with a party of yeomanry, and forced the

property out of his hands. It was in vain that Major Hillas

remonstrated; that he declared that his object was not salvage, and that

he only endeavoured to save as much as possible from the wreck for the

benefit of the owners. Being thus frustrated in his intentions, he made

a journey to Scotland, where the owners of the vessel resided, in order

to make them acquainted with all the circumstances of the business. On

his return Mr. Fenton thought proper to send him a message, which the

Major very properly declined accepting. An investigation as to the right

of salvage afterwards took place, during the course of which Major

Hillas complained that he had been most unhandsomely treated by Mr.

Fenton, who had interfered unjustifiably; and by taking the mate out of

his hands, secured to himself, in an unhandsome manner, the legal

custody of the vessel. Four days after the close of the investigation,

Mr. John Fenton delivered a message to Major Hillas from Mr. Thomas

Fenton. Major Hillas accepted the challenge, and when on the ground

addressed the crowd of bystanders, saying—“I am sorry the mistaken laws

of honour oblige me to come here to defend myself, and I declare to God

I have no animosity to man or woman on the face of the earth.” Major

Hillas, in anticipation of a fatal result, had dressed himself in a full

suit of mourning. On the first shot he fell dead. Mr. Fenton was

afterwards tried for the capital offence, but was acquitted by the jury.

BETWEEN P. DILLON, ESQ., AND B. KANE, ESQ.

Dublin, Feb. 21, 1816.

Yesterday evening a meeting took place near Merlin Park, between P.

Dillon, Esq., of this town, and B. Kane, Esq., of ——, when the former

received his adversary’s ball under the right breast, and instantly

expired.

These two gentlemen were close friends for many years. Mr. Dillon had

fought several duels, in all of which Mr. Kane acted as his second. And

it is remarkable that Mr. Dillon’s father lost his life in an affair of

honour with the late Malachy Fallon, Esq., at the same age, and nearly

on the same spot where his son fell.

BETWEEN MR. ALLEY AND MR. ADOLPHUS.

December 2, 1816.

A dispute between Mr. Alley and Mr. Adolphus, which originated in the

court of the Old Bailey, during a late trial, has at length been brought

to a termination, and without any fatal result.

On November 13th, Mr. Adolphus sent notice to Mr. Alley, that he would

be ready to meet him at Calais as soon as ever he chose; the parties

being bound over by the magistrates to preserve the peace within this

kingdom. Mr. Alley accepted the challenge, and on the 14th set out for

Dover, accompanied by Captain Alley, his cousin and second. Two of his

intimate friends, Mr. Agar and Mr. Bevil, also voluntarily accompanied

him. They arrived at Calais on the 15th, some hours before Mr. Adolphus;

and at two o’clock on the 16th, after the preliminary business was

arranged by the seconds, the combatants met, a short distance from the

town; took their ground; and on the signal being given, they both fired

together. Mr. Alley was wounded in the right arm; and the ball from his

pistol passed so close to his adversary, as almost to graze his head.

Here the business terminated. An eminent surgeon being immediately sent

for, extracted the ball from Mr. Alley’s arm.

BETWEEN MAJOR LOCKYER AND MR. SUTTON COCHRANE.

Cowes, December 12, 1817.

On Wednesday a duel was fought here between Major Lockyer and Mr. Sutton

Cochrane, recently a lieutenant in the Royal Navy, which proved fatal to

the latter, he having received his antagonist’s ball under the right

breast, which passed through both ventricles of the heart, and the

lungs.

These gentlemen, in company with a Mr. Redesdale, a Mr. Hand, and

upwards of sixty others, were going out as adventurers to South America,

in the ship Grace, Davy master, now lying in these roads, wind-bound.

The trifling difference between the parties arose in consequence of an

expression of an unguarded nature from the deceased, the evening before,

while regaling themselves, with several others, at an inn; he having

asserted, that they were all in debt, and were seeking their fortunes.

At which the major felt very indignant, and asked, if the other meant to

include him? The deceased replied in the affirmative, and declared he

would prove his assertion, which he did by giving a very ingenious

explanation, observing, that if we were not in debt to any of our

fellow-beings, we were all indebted to our Maker. But the major, not

considering the explanation satisfactory, insisted on Mr. Cochrane’s

meeting him the next morning, at the dawn of day, who very reluctantly

fell into the measure, previously declaring that he would not fire

himself, but that if his opponent insisted, he would receive his fire.

It was agreed that they should both fire at one time; but when the

signal was made, it was observed, the deceased never raised his arm to

level his pistol, while the ball of his antagonist’s pistol immediately

struck the seat of life. When the pistol of the deceased was examined

afterwards, it was found neither unstopped nor cocked. The major, and

the two seconds, Messrs. Redesdale and Hand, immediately decamped across

the water.

The deceased was a well-educated and genteel young man, about twenty

years of age, and we believe a relation of Lord Cochrane.

A coroner’s inquest sat upon the body, the jury delivered their verdict,

“wilful murder,” against Major Lockyer, and Messrs. Redesdale and Hand,

and the coroner issued his warrant for their apprehension. Mr. Hand was

apprehended (by Allen, the Newport constable) at Portsmouth, on

Thursday; the others are at large.

Major Lockyer and Mr. Hand were tried at Winchester Assizes, on the 7th

of March, 1818; and the jury returning a verdict of manslaughter, they

were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.

BETWEEN MR. THEODORE O’CALLAGHAN AND LIEUTENANT BAILEY.

Bow Street, January 13, 1818.

Yesterday morning, between eight and nine o’clock, Mr. Theodore

O’Callaghan, and Lieutenant Bailey of the 58th regiment, met in a field

near Chalk Farm, to fight a duel, accompanied by Mr. Charles Newbolt,

and Mr. Thomas Joseph Phealan, as seconds. Lieutenant Bailey received a

wound in his right side, which proved fatal, as he languished about two

hours, and then expired. Mr. O’Callaghan and the two seconds were

afterwards taken into custody, and brought to this office, when they

underwent an examination before Mr. Conant, the sitting magistrate, and

the following particulars transpired:—

Thomas Hunt, a constable at Hampstead, stated—That he was sent for to

Mr. Adams’s house, near Chalk Farm, in Ingram’s Lane, near the Load of

Hay, where he took the prisoners into custody, in consequence of a

gentleman having been killed in a duel.

Mr. Adams, who occupies the house above alluded to, attended, and

stated—That about nine o’clock that morning he was in his bedroom, in

the act of dressing himself, when he heard the discharge of two pistols,

which induced him to look out of his window. He saw four gentlemen two

fields off his house, near Chalk Farm, whom he considered in the act of

fighting a duel. As they did not separate or disperse, he was fearful

they would fire again. He therefore finished dressing himself with all

possible speed, and hurried off to the spot, to endeavour to prevent the

shot being repeated. Just as he arrived at the gate, and was in the act

of getting over it, two pistols went off. He observed one of the

gentlemen, who appeared to have discharged one of the pistols, turn

round, and concluded he had received one of the shots. The other three

gentlemen, the prisoners, went up to him instantly, and supported him on

each side, to prevent him from falling. Each of them held him by the

arm. On the witness getting up to them, one of them said to him, they

were all friends. He saw blood running down the trowsers of the deceased

profusely. The three prisoners gave him their names and addresses. He

did not see a pistol in the possession of the deceased, or any of the

prisoners. He invited the prisoners to conduct the deceased to his

house, which they accordingly did. He did not observe any other person

in the field, where the parties were, or near the spot. He observed to

the parties, that it was an unfortunate affair. They all agreed, it was

so. They inquired of him, if there was a house near for the prisoners to

conduct the deceased to, as they were fearful of putting him to

inconvenience. However, there being no public-house near, they supported

him to his house, which was about four or five hundred yards off.

The deceased appeared to him to be in a dangerous state, and blood was

running out of his trowsers very fast. A surgeon was sent for with all

possible speed. The deceased was laid on a sofa in his parlour, and

while he was lying there, he desired Mr. Theodore O’Callaghan to come to

him, and held out his hand to shake hands with him, and said, he had

behaved most honourably. The deceased had observed, that he was sensible

he was dying, and could not live long. After this, he called the other

two prisoners to him, shook hands with them, and made similar

observations to them, and said, he forgave them all.

Mr. O’Callaghan, after this, went off to Hampstead, to get a coach to

convey him from the witness’s house. But in the mean time Mr. Rodd, a

surgeon of Hampstead, arrived, in about half an hour from the time of

the fatal shot. Mr. Rodd, after having examined the wound, said it was

impossible to remove him. The shot had entered on his right side, passed

through his intestines, and all but came through on the left side, it

being only confined by the skin. It was visible to the eye. The shot had

carried with it a piece of the cloth of his coat, and other garments.

The deceased had observed to him, that the quarrel which had been the

cause of the duel was not originally a quarrel of their own, but had

sprung out of a quarrel of their mutual friends, who were to have fought

a duel yesterday, and they were to have been their seconds. Upon

recollection, he would not be positive whether it was the deceased or

Mr. O’Callaghan who made this observation. He, however, understood that

it was the prisoner O’Callaghan who shot the deceased. He did not

observe any pistols in the possession of either of the parties, but he

found two pistols lying on the table of his parlour; none of them owned

them; but he had no doubt of their belonging to them (they were produced

in the office in an unloaded state); they were of a large size. There

were no pistols there before they came into the house. The deceased

lived about two hours, or two hours and a quarter. All the prisoners

paid every possible attention to the deceased, during the time he lived.

He conversed with them all, and particularly with Mr. T. Phealan, who,

the deceased told the witness, had been his second, or his friend, he

could not recollect which. He heard him request Mr. Phealan to write the

full particulars of the whole affair to his father, who, he understood,

lived at Limerick.

Mr. Phealan had some conversation with the deceased privately, every

other person having left the room. He then went off to London to procure

more surgical assistance. On his return, the deceased had expired. Mr.

Newbolt went, in the mean time, to inquire for lodgings at Chalk Farm,

or the neighbourhood. Mr. O’Callaghan went to Hampstead to procure a

coach. They all appeared anxious to do everything for the deceased, and

did not seem inclined to abscond, but very readily surrendered

themselves.

The prisoners were not called upon for any defence. The magistrates

informed them, the law did not make any distinction in cases of murder,

all being considered as principals. They must all, therefore, be

detained. It was suggested to the magistrate, that safe custody was all,

probably, that he would require; to which he assented, and it was

agreed, that they should be kept in the watchhouse till the decision of

the coroner’s inquest should be known; when it was suggested by the

magistrate, that it was probable he might admit Mr. Phealan to bail. He

regretted that the surgeon had not attended.

* * * * *

Public Office, Bow Street.

Yesterday morning another investigation took place, before Richard

Birnie, Esq., respecting the cause of the death of Lieutenant Edward

Bailey, of the 58th regiment. Mr. George Rodd, the surgeon of Hampstead,

who had omitted to attend the examination on Monday evening, attended

yesterday morning, and stated, That he was sent for on Monday morning,

with great speed, to go to Mr. Adams’s house in Ingram’s Lane, to attend

a gentleman who had been severely wounded. He arrived at Mr. Adams’s

house about ten o’clock, where he saw a gentleman, who had been wounded,

lying on a sofa. He proceeded to examine the wound, and he found a ball

had penetrated on his right side, very nearly in a line with his navel.

He proceeded to examine him on his left side, when he discovered that a

ball was resting between his skin and the muscles. He succeeded in

extracting the ball from the wound, and then dressed it. The three

gentlemen, who are the prisoners, were present in the room at the time

he examined the wounds of the deceased. After Lieutenant Bailey died, he

opened the body, and found his intestines had been wounded in three

different places, and which he had no doubt had caused his death.

Mr. William Adams, who has acted so humanely in this unfortunate

transaction, attended again, and stated, in addition to the testimony

which he gave on Monday evening,—That after the deceased had called Mr.

O’Callaghan to him on the sofa, and shook hands with him, and said

everything had been conducted in the most honourable manner, and that he

forgave him, he asked Mr. O’Callaghan if he would have done the same by

him if he had wounded him? To this Mr. O’Callaghan replied, most

certainly he should have acted as he had done; and followed up the

observation by saying, “I wish I had been wounded instead of you.”

Mr. O’Callaghan appeared much affected, and said, “You touched me in the

first fire we had on one of my legs, by what is called a graze.” He then

exhibited his trowsers and boots; when it appeared, that a ball had

passed through both the legs of his trowsers, and one of his boots. He

saw the deceased, Lieutenant Bailey, shake hands very heartily with Mr.

O’Callaghan, previously to their parting.

The three prisoners were ordered to be detained in custody.

On the application of an attorney engaged for the prisoners, Mr. Birnie

agreed to their undergoing another investigation previous to their

commitment for trial; and the attorney wrote to Mr. Adams, requesting it

as a favour that he would attend again last evening at 7 o’clock, at

which hour the three prisoners were brought again to this office; and

Mr. Birnie having taken his seat on the bench, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Arabin,

and another barrister, whose name we understood to be Gould, presented

themselves to the magistrate in behalf of the prisoners.

Mr. Nolan first addressed the magistrate, and requested, that as the

coroner’s inquest had not yet sat, and would not sit till to-morrow, as

the prisoners were now in safe custody, the magistrate would let them

remain where they had hitherto been confined; as he well knew it was in

vain to urge any discretionary power of the magistrate, as to bailing

them, till the decision of the coroner’s jury was known.

The learned gentleman said, he felt strongly the charge of the crime

under which the prisoners laboured; but he would say, that nothing he

had heard of the evidence against them, in the least affected them as to

premeditated murder. With regard to one of the prisoners, Mr. Phealan,

he was the particular friend of the deceased, and was by no means

instrumental to the violence that had been committed. All that Mr. Adams

said respecting him, and he was the most material witness, was, that he

was there on the spot at the time that the deceased came by his death.

For anything that appeared in evidence, he might have been there

accidentally; the spot where the transaction took place being near a

public road and a path, he might have been an idle spectator. He must

now answer for the highest crime which the law knew. The question he had

to urge was, whether he was to remain in custody or be admitted to bail,

till his trial; which he urged as to a sense of honour and humanity, and

which he had no doubt was possessed by the gentleman by whom the

business was first investigated, Mr. Conant; and if he had then been

present, he should have taken the liberty of asking Mr. Adams a few

questions, which he flattered himself would have induced the magistrate

to have admitted the gentlemen to bail. If the coroner’s inquest had met

and pronounced their verdict, the case would be altered. As Mr. Adams

had not arrived, he trusted there would be no objection to let them

remain where they were. To meet his fate, was the wish of his friend,

Mr. O’Callaghan, as soon as possible; to him the trial would be the most

interesting, and he by no means wished to defer it. All he wished for

was, that they might be remanded till to-morrow morning. After the

coroner’s inquest had sat upon the body of Lieutenant Bailey, and

returned a verdict, it would then be a question, whether all or any of

the gentlemen should be admitted to bail.

Mr. Arabin followed Mr. Nolan, and very handsomely acknowledged the

kindness which had been shown him, in allowing him to read the evidence

which had been taken in writing against his clients. He proceeded to

enlarge upon it, and urged that there was not a shadow of difference

between Mr. Phealan and Mr. Newbolt; and solicited that their commitment

might be deferred, and that they might be admitted to bail.

Mr. Birnie in reply, said it was his wish to do justice to all; the

prisoners had all been found on the spot.

Mr. Arabin admitted that there was no doubt about that; but he appealed

to the magistrate to feel as a man, a gentleman, and as a lawyer.

Mr. Birnie said, he had a public duty to perform. In answer to the

arguments of the learned counsel, he quoted the celebrated case of

Montgomery and Macnamara, in which Mr. Heaviside, the surgeon, was

committed to Newgate, who had only been attending professionally; yet he

was committed on a charge of murder. In that case, it will be

recollected, Sir Richard Ford was committing magistrate, who at that

time took up the practice of duelling in a very spirited manner; and

publicly expressed his determination to commit the surgeon, and all

persons who were present at fatal duels, to take their trials for

murder. And it was this firm conduct in the magistrate at that period,

which checked the spirit of duelling for some time after; Mr. Heaviside

being confined in Newgate for a considerable time, and at a very heavy

expense. Bail to any amount could have been procured for Mr. Heaviside,

but the application was refused.

The other learned counsel was heard in favour of the prisoners. Mr.

Nolan said their only motive for the application in behalf of the

prisoners was, that they would be more comfortable where they had been,

during the night, than in Newgate. Mr. Birnie observed that he did not

know that magistrates had anything to do with coroner’s inquests. Mr.

Nolan said that if the magistrate complied with the application, no

mischief, public or private, could happen. The magistrate observed, that

it was in evidence before him, that one of the king’s subjects had been

deprived of life, and _primâ facie_ it was murder. He had now made up

his mind: the prisoners must all be committed to Newgate to take their

trials for the murder of Lieutenant Bailey; and he was convinced that

the three learned gentlemen would allow that he had decided right.

The prisoners were given into the custody of the officers to be conveyed

to Newgate; and, on the 14th of January, they were tried at the Old

Bailey for the crime laid to their charge; when the jury having returned

a verdict of “manslaughter,” they were sentenced to be imprisoned three

months in Newgate.

BETWEEN LIEUT. CARTWRIGHT AND LIEUT. MAXWELL.

March, 1818.

On the 1st of March, a fatal duel took place at Avranches, on the French

coast, opposite to Jersey. It arose in consequence of a dispute between

Lieutenants Cartwright and Maxwell of the British Navy. Lieutenant

Cartwright received his adversary’s first fire: the ball entered his

forehead, and he expired in a few moments. He had been married at St.

Helier’s, only a few weeks before, to Miss Mann, niece to the Bishop of

Cork and Ross.

BETWEEN VISCOUNT BELGRAVE AND SIR J. G. EGERTON.

October 17, 1818.

An affair of honour was this day decided on the Flats near Chester,

between Viscount Belgrave and Sir John G. Egerton. On the first fire Sir

John’s ball struck Lord Belgrave in the pistol arm, and slightly wounded

his lordship. The quarrel between the parties originated in certain

proceedings which had taken place on the preceding day, at the annual

election of mayor for the city of Chester. A Mr. Baker, in proposing Mr.

Evans, a gentleman in the Government interest, as mayor, made what were

considered pointed allusions to some of the Egerton party, and

insinuated that they had been stimulated by Sir John Egerton himself.

The insinuation was required by Sir John to be disavowed by Lord

Belgrave, who was present; but this his lordship refused. The greatest

confusion then arose in the assembly, and the Recorder was ultimately

obliged to adjourn the court to another day. The meeting between Sir

John and Lord Belgrave was immediately afterwards arranged.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN JOHNSTON, OF THE 64TH REGIMENT AND BENJAMIN T. BROWNE,

SURGEON OF THE ERIE, AMERICAN SLOOP OF WAR.

March, 1819.

On the 23rd of March, while Captain Johnston was on the main-guard duty

at Gibraltar, a report was made to him, that five individuals had been

taken into custody by a sentry, on their way home from the play, for

being without lights, contrary to the garrison regulations. Captain

Johnston immediately ordered a sufficient number of men to see them

home. In about ten minutes the police-sergeant who accompanied them,

returned with three of the five in custody; and acquainted Captain

Johnston that Archibald Taylor had endeavoured to escape from the

sentry, and had made use of provoking and abusive language to him.

Having, upon inquiry, found the report to be correct, Captain Johnston

ordered the offender to be confined in the Crib; an order which he

resisted, and used very offensive language to Captain Johnston himself.

At this time Captain Johnston was not at all aware that he was an

American. Taylor demanded satisfaction for the treatment he had

received; but the Captain considered that he had merely acted in

conformity with his duty, reported the whole affair to the

field-officer, who approved of the course that had been pursued, and

ordered Taylor to be continued in confinement.

In the morning Mr. Taylor was released; and upon the circulation of a

report, two days afterwards, that Captain Johnston had declined to meet

him or the American consul, who was said to have offered “to stand in

his shoes,” the former having been obliged to sail immediately with the

vessel of which he was master. Captain Johnston applied to the Consul

for an explanation; when that gentleman disavowed any knowledge of the

reports in question, and gave the Captain his thanks for the gentlemanly

conduct he had evinced in the business.

Thus matters continued till the evening of the 31st, when Captain

Johnston received the following letter by the hands of Lieutenant

Stockton, first Lieutenant of the American sloop of war Erie:—

“Erie Sloop, March 3rd 1819.

“SIR,

“YOU have refused to give the satisfaction due to a man of honour, whom

you did not hesitate to insult, because he was no more than a commander

of an American merchant schooner. That gentleman is known to me, and I

vouch for his equality to you in every respect. I am his representative;

and the satisfaction I understand you boast to have offered his friends,

I demand as an American. My rank, I trust, is enough for any man of

honour; and you will do me the favour to consider the bearer, my friend,

for your use.

(Signed) BENJAMIN T. BROWNE.”

Mr. Browne was surgeon of the Erie. Captain Johnston instantly accepted

the challenge; and the next morning, a meeting took place between them,

upon the neutral ground; Captain Johnston having distinctly disavowed

making any boast with regard to Mr. Taylor. The arrangement made by

their mutual friends on the ground was, distance eight paces, the word

to be given, “Are you ready, gentlemen?” and, on assent being given,

both to fire, after a pause for taking aim, while one, two, three, could

be counted. On the first fire Captain Johnston received his opponent’s

ball through his hat. They were handed pistols a second time. The

Captain fired; but Mr. Browne reserved his fire so long, that the friend

of the former exclaimed, “That is not fair!” on which he fired. Captain

Johnston expressed his indignation at the reservation of fire by his

antagonist. After some warm language on both sides, the third discharge

took place, without effect; and on the fourth,—which was rather hurried,

in consequence of the approach of a sergeant’s guard,—Captain Johnston’s

ball took effect in Mr. Browne’s thigh. His friend, Mr. Stockton,

immediately took up the ground, desiring Captain Johnston to keep his.

They were about proceeding, when the sergeant’s guard reached the spot,

and prevented any further progress at that time.

Mr. Stockton insisted on meeting Captain Johnston the next morning, at

five o’clock; to which the latter agreed, and returned to the garrison.

Captain Johnston was prevented from meeting in the morning, from the

circumstance of his having been put under arrest, and an order of

garrison being made, that no officer should be permitted to pass the

barriers, in coloured clothes or otherwise; he, however, contrived to

elude the vigilance of the guard in the afternoon, and at half-past four

met Mr. Stockton at St. Michael’s Cave.

The seconds instantly entered into conversation as to the mode of

firing. Mr. Stockton’s friend proposed that they should, on receiving

the word, take an unlimited time for aim. This was objected to by

Captain Johnston’s friend as sanguinary, and at variance with those

principles of honour upon which such meetings are founded. Some argument

followed, which ended in a determination to decide by chance which mode

should be adopted. The result was favourable to the more humane course;

but the time which was lost in the dispute exposed them to the

interruption of the guard, which was seen approaching. It was now

discovered that Mr. Stockton had no pistols, and one of Captain

Johnston’s was borrowed for his use. Having taken their ground at the

distance of eight paces, Mr. Stockton proceeded to take a steady aim, by

resting the barrel of his pistol on his left hand. Captain Johnston’s

friend objected to this; and again the American endeavoured to justify

that very unusual mode of deciding such matters. At length the guard was

seen within a hundred paces, and Captain Johnston desired that the

affair might proceed in the usual manner. This was agreed to, and the

discharge took place: the ball of Lieutenant Stockton’s pistol passed

through Captain Johnston’s great coat; and, before a second fire could

take place, the guard came up and interfered.

BETWEEN MR. UNIACKE AND MR. BOWIE.

August 1, 1819.

A duel was fought at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the 1st of August, between

Mr. Uniacke, son of the Attorney-General, and Mr. Bowie, an auctioneer;

when the latter was killed on the spot. The deceased had been under a

prosecution for an offence; in which cause he considered Mr. Uniacke, as

the prosecuting attorney, had used improper expressions regarding him,

and therefore called him out to the above ordeal.

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

October 6, 1819.

The following are the particulars of a fatal duel which took place at

Montmartre, near Paris, on the 6th of October, between Captain Pellew

and Lieutenant Walsh:—Mr. Walsh not long since exchanged from the Life

Guards, in which corps Captain Pellew held his commission. Previously to

Mr. Walsh’s quitting the regiment, he had resided with his wife a good

deal in the barracks in Hyde Park; where, being young and thoughtless,

she unhappily received with too much readiness those attentions which

military men too often think themselves at liberty to pay to every

female. The consequences were such as might be expected to result from

such infatuation. A close attachment was formed between Captain Pellew

and the lady; and at length, in a fatal moment, she agreed to sacrifice

her character, by eloping with the object of her blind affection. About

a month before the duel she went off with him from her father’s house,

where she had been residing for some time, during the absence of her

husband. They repaired to Paris, whither they were followed by Mr.

Walsh; he preferring what is called the satisfaction of a gentleman, to

pursuing any legal means of redress. A meeting was arranged: the

distance agreed upon was twelve full paces, and they were to fire

together by signal. When that was given, the pistol of Mr. Walsh was

immediately discharged. Captain Pellew did not fire; and it is said he

never intended to do so. Mr. Walsh’s ball passed through the right

temple into the brain of Captain Pellew, who instantly expired.

------------------------------------------------------------------------