CHAPTER III

DUELS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES, FROM 1820 TO 1841.

BETWEEN MR. GRATTAN AND LORD CLARE.

June 11, 1820.

Mr. Grattan, son of the deceased patriot, having, at a public meeting in

Dublin, made use of expressions which Lord Clare conceived to reflect

upon the late Lord Clare, his father, and having declined either to

explain or to justify them, the parties met in Hyde Park; when Mr.

Grattan, having received Lord Clare’s fire, instantly fired in the air.

The friends present having given their opinion, that the affair could

proceed no further, Mr. Grattan said, that having now met Lord Clare in

the field, and given him the satisfaction required, he was willing to

admit he was in the wrong, in having made use of such expressions. Upon

which the parties shook hands, and the affair terminated.

BETWEEN T. HUNGERFORD, ESQ. AND R. TRAVERS, ESQ.

August 13, 1820.

A fatal duel took place on the 13th of August at the island, within four

miles of Klonakilty, between T. Hungerford, Esq., and R. Travers, Esq.,

a young gentleman of that neighbourhood. In the first fire the latter

received the ball in his forehead, and instantly expired. The cause of

the dispute was of some standing, and was likely to have terminated

amicably, through the interference of mutual friends; but,

unfortunately, on the preceding day a difference occurred upon a trivial

point in the arrangement, which led to the lamentable catastrophe. They

had been previously on terms of the closest intimacy.

BETWEEN MR. R. STUART AND MR. TOWNSEND DADE.

August 20, 1820.

A duel was this day fought between Mr. Richard Stuart and Mr. Townsend

Dade, both of King George county, Virginia, on the Maryland shore,

immediately opposite their residence, at a short distance, and with

muskets loaded with buck-shot. Mr. Dade was shot dead, and Mr. Stuart

was so severely wounded, that he expired in a few hours. They were near

relations, neighbours, and theretofore close friends. The unfortunate

difference occurred about a mere trifle.

BETWEEN MR. FULLIOT AND MR. BURROWES.

September 17, 1820.

In consequence of a dispute Mr. Fulliot, a gentleman well known in

Chester for his amiability of disposition, on Monday morning received a

challenge from Mr. S. Burrowes, a person connected with the law. The

combatants drew lots for the first fire, which Mr. Burrowes won; the

distance fixed upon was twelve paces. Shots were exchanged without

effect: the pistols were a second time loaded, and both fired together

with a like result. An ineffectual attempt was now made to reconcile the

parties, and the fatal weapons were again discharged, which unhappily

were too certain in their aim. A ball pierced the head of Mr. Fulliot,

and fractured his skull. Mr. Burrowes was killed on the spot.

BETWEEN MR. JOHN SCOTT AND MR. CHRISTIE.

February 16, 1821.

A duel, attended with fatal consequences, took place on Friday evening,

the 16th of February, at nine o’clock, in a field between Chalk Farm

Tavern and Primrose Hill. The parties in this unhappy conflict were Mr.

John Scott, the avowed editor of the London Magazine, and Mr. Christie,

a friend of the supposed conductor of Blackwood’s Magazine, Mr. John

Gibson Lockhart, of Edinburgh. The quarrel between these gentlemen had

its rise in a series of articles which appeared in the London Magazine,

discussing the conduct and management of Blackwood’s Magazine, and

regarded by Mr. Lockhart as offensive to his feelings and injurious to

his honour. Mr. Christie, as the friend of Mr. Lockhart, waited upon Mr.

Scott to demand an explanation of the articles in question; and, in

fact, to require a public apology for matter which he considered

personally offensive to himself, or such other satisfaction as a

gentleman was entitled to. This interview led to others, as well as to a

correspondence, in which much of mutual warmth was expressed.

To prevent misapprehension of what had occurred, Mr. Scott published his

statement of the transactions to which he had been a party; which was

very generally circulated in the literary world, as well as copied into

some of the daily papers. This was followed by a statement on the part

of Mr. Christie, the friend of Mr. Lockhart; which was succeeded by a

second statement from the pen of Mr. Scott, in which he treated the

conduct of Mr. Lockhart with great asperity, and defended the course

which he had pursued with considerable warmth. Then followed a

counter-statement from Mr. Christie; in consequence of which, Mr. Scott

proceeded with his friend Mr. Patmore, to Mr. Christie’s lodgings, and

demanded an apology or instant satisfaction. Mr. Christie refused the

former, and expressed his readiness, without loss of time, to grant the

latter.

The matter having come to this issue, it was agreed they should meet at

Chalk Farm; and thither they proceeded, at nine o’clock on the same

evening. Mr. Scott was attended by his friend Mr. Patmore, and by Mr.

Pettigrew, his medical adviser. The moon shone with brightness; so that

the party had a full opportunity of seeing each other, and, having taken

their ground, they fired together without effect. The second fire was

fatal to Mr. Scott; who received his antagonist’s ball in his groin and

fell. Every assistance which the circumstances would permit was afforded

him; and he was conveyed on a shutter to Chalk Farm tavern; where he was

laid on a bed in an almost hopeless state. Mr. Christie and his second

then retired. Mr. Pettigrew, after having rendered all the assistance in

his power to Mr. Scott, returned to town, in order to procure further

surgical assistance, and to give directions that Mr. Scott’s apartments

at Mr. Bohte’s, in York-street, Covent-garden, should be prepared for

his reception, Mr. Scott having expressed a desire to be removed home. A

short time after Mr. Pettigrew’s departure, however, it was found that

he could not be removed with safety. On examination, it appeared that

the ball had passed through the intestines, and lodged at the opposite

side. The surgeons in attendance, however, deemed it prudent not to

extract it, lest additional inflammation should be excited, and the

danger, which was considered imminent, be thereby enhanced.

After Mr. Scott was wounded, Mr. Christie’s friend apprised Mr. Patmore,

that, in the first fire, Mr. Christie did not direct his pistol at Mr.

Scott; but this circumstance not having been observed by Mr. Patmore,

nor communicated to him at the time, and the parties being still

unreconciled, a second fire unfortunately took place, which terminated

as above stated. On Sunday Mr. Guthrie extracted the ball. Mr. Scott

lingered till Thursday, the 4th of March, when he expired. On the same

evening, the coroner’s inquest sat on the body; upon which occasion Dr.

Darling stated, that Mr. Scott, referring to his wound, had said, “This

ought not to have taken place; I suspect some great mismanagement; there

was no necessity for a second fire.” After a short pause, he

proceeded—“All I required from Mr. Christie was a declaration, that he

meant no reflection on my character; this he refused, and the meeting

became inevitable: on the field Mr. Christie behaved well, and when all

was ready for the fire, he called out—‘Mr. Scott, you must not stand

there; I see your head above the horizon; you give me an advantage.’ I

believe he could have hit me then if he liked. After the pistols were

re-loaded, and every thing was ready for a second fire, Mr. Trail called

out—‘Now, Mr. Christie, take your aim, and do not throw away your

advantage, as you did before.’ I called out immediately, ‘What! did not

Mr. Christie fire at me?’ I was answered by Mr. Patmore, ‘You must not

speak; ’tis now of no use to talk; you have nothing now for it but

firing.’ The signal was immediately given: we fired, and I fell.” The

deceased expressed himself satisfied with Mr. Christie’s conduct; whom

he described as having been very kind to him after he was wounded.

Mr. Pettigrew stated, that Mr. Christie asked him what he thought of the

wound. He replied, that he feared it was mortal, in the hearing of Mr.

Scott; when Mr. Christie addressed Mr. Scott, and expressed a wish “that

he had been in Mr. Scott’s situation, rather than Mr. Scott should have

been wounded by him.” Mr. Scott then said, “Whatever may be the issue of

this business, I beg you will bear in remembrance, that everything has

been fair and honourable.” On being asked, if he did not hear it said on

the ground, by Mr. Christie, that he had fired down the field, he

replied—“I did; to the best of my recollection, Mr. Christie said,

wringing his hands, apparently in agony, ‘Why was I permitted to fire a

second time? I discharged my pistol down the field before; I could do no

more. I was compelled to fire in my own defence.’” These expressions

were made in consequence of some altercation which took place between

the seconds. Mr. Christie took Mr. Scott by the hand after he was

wounded.—The Coroner having summed up the evidence, the jury returned a

verdict of “wilful murder” against Mr. Christie, Mr. Trail, and Mr.

Patmore.

On Friday, the 13th of April, Chief Justice Abbott and Mr. Justice Park

having taken their seats on the bench, at the Old Bailey, Mr. Gurney,

who was their counsel, announced that Mr. Christie and Mr. Trail

attended to surrender and take their trials, upon an indictment found by

the grand jury against them for murder. They were immediately placed at

the bar, and pleaded “Not guilty.” Mr. Patmore did not make his

appearance. The case for the prosecution was opened by Mr. Walford; who

observed, that if the jury felt any doubts as to the identity of the

prisoners, or thought the whole affair was gone through in heat, then

they would acquit the gentlemen at the bar. Dr. Darling then repeated

the evidence he had given before the coroner. After which, Mr. Christie

and Mr. Trail being called on for their defence, stated, that they

should only call witnesses to speak to their general character and

habits of life. A number of most respectable persons then bore testimony

to the general benevolence and humanity of their dispositions.

Chief Justice Abbott then, after stating to the jury the nature of the

indictment, proceeded to instruct them as to the law of the case. The

accusation charged three persons as aiding and concurring in the death

of Mr. Scott: two individuals only appeared; but if the jury believed

that the individuals at the bar were really two of those who had aided

in the commission of the crime, it mattered not by whose particular hand

the pistol had been discharged. The distinction, in cases of duels,

between manslaughter and murder had been very clearly and correctly

marked out by the learned counsel for the prosecution: if persons in

heat of blood went out and fought with deadly weapons, then the law,

allowing for the frailty of human nature, deemed the party killing

guilty of manslaughter only; but if, yielding to a false notion of

honour, they went out upon deliberation and in cold blood to fight, then

the death of one man fixed the crime of the murder upon all concerned;

upon seconds (frequently the more culpable parties) as well as upon

principals. The first question then was, were the gentlemen at the bar

two of the parties known to have been in the field at the time when the

shot was fired? and next, was the duel fought in heat of blood or upon

deliberation? His lordship then recapitulated the main points of the

evidence, and upon that evidence left the fact of identity to the jury.

It was possible, he said, that the real perpetrators of the crime might

have escaped from the field before the arrival of Mr. Pettigrew, and

that the prisoners at the bar might have appeared accidentally at the

moment; still the onus of showing that such had been the case lay in

some measure upon them. Upon the second point, the feeling under which

(assuming the identity) the duel had taken place—of the time or place at

which the quarrel originated there was no evidence. The declaration of

Mr. Scott, at the moment of his fall, that all had been done fairly and

honourably, was, although the law would not recognise such ideas of

honour, entitled to the attention of the jury; and there was another

circumstance, arising out of the words of the supposed Mr. Christie, to

which their consideration should be directed. They were these—“Why was I

allowed to fire a second time? I fired down the field at first; what

could I do more? I was compelled to fire in my own defence.” Now, the

circumstances were not such as would, in law, acquit a man as having

fired in his own defence; but the words might have an operation upon the

feeling under which the second shot had been fired. It was possible that

Mr. Christie, having forborne to take aim the first time, might have

fired his second shot under an impulse of immediate anger, produced by

the failure of his pacific proceeding; and in that case, although his

adversary fell, the crime amounted only to manslaughter. The Lord Chief

Justice concluded by recommending the jury, in a case of doubt, to take

the side of mercy; and by observing, upon the excellent characters which

the prisoners had received, that, unfortunately, men of the most

exemplary humanity and benevolent feeling were too often induced to take

part in transactions which led to the loss of life on one side, and to

remorse and repentance during life on the other.

The jury, after a deliberation of twenty-five minutes, returned a

verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN VISCOUNT PETERSHAM AND THOMAS WEBSTER WEDDERBURNE, ESQ.

April 21, 1821.

A paragraph having appeared in the public journals, alluding to an

altercation between Lord Petersham and Mr. Webster Wedderburne, and

hinting that his lordship had undergone personal chastisement, Mr.

Wedderburne was called upon to contradict the statement in question. The

following is the correspondence that passed between him and Lord Foley

upon the occasion:—

“SIR,

“Upon my return home, at six o’clock this evening, I first saw your

publication in this day’s morning paper, and, in consequence, lost no

time in dispatching an express to Lord Petersham, at Brighton; who will

instantly, upon receiving my letter, return to town, and that moment you

shall hear from me. I write this, sir, to account for what may appear a

delay on the part of Lord Petersham in not writing to you the moment

your publication appeared.

“From yours, sir, &c.

“FOLEY.

“Hamilton-place, 7 o’clock, Thursday evening, April 19.

“P.S.—Lord Petersham cannot return before 7 or 8 to-morrow.”

“MY LORD,

“I have this instant received your lordship’s letter, and beg to state

that I shall be at home at all hours to-morrow, and ready to answer all

communications.

I am, &c.

“T. WEBSTER WEDDERBURNE.

“April 19, 8 o’clock, P.M.”

“SIR,

“Owing to a mistake. Lord Petersham did not receive my letter till late

this morning, consequently is only just arrived. He now desires me to

say that it is absolutely necessary you should either send a friend to

me, or fix a time and place of meeting to-morrow morning. I shall be at

home till eleven this evening to receive your reply.

“From your humble servant,

“FOLEY.

“Hamilton-place, Friday evening, 7 o’clock, April 20.”

“MY LORD,

“It was with much surprise, after having been detained at home the whole

day, in consequence of your lordship’s note of last night, that I have

received one from you this evening, desiring me either to send a friend

to you, or to fix a time and place for meeting Lord Petersham to-morrow

morning. Let Lord P. distinctly state the grounds on which he calls upon

me, and my friend will then be ready to receive your lordship, or any

communication on the part of Lord P.

“I am, &c.

“T. WEBSTER WEDDERBURNE.

“Friday evening, April 20.”

“Hamilton-place, Friday evening, half-past 10.

“SIR,

“It is with astonishment that I received your letter demanding an

explanation of the ground upon which Lord Petersham now calls upon you

for satisfaction. You have not contradicted, but encouraged a most

scandalous and prejudicial report against his personal honour: he calls

upon you positively to contradict it, or give him that satisfaction

which is due to a gentleman falsely accused. The cause of your having

been kept waiting during the day has clearly been explained; I must,

therefore, now repeat the necessity of your immediately fixing upon the

time and place of meeting to-morrow, or giving under your hand, for

publication, a contradiction of that scandalous and false report before

alluded to. Too much time has already been lost to attend to

explanations that may, under some pretence, be withdrawn.

“From yours,

“FOLEY.

“P.S.—An immediate answer is expected to the above, directed to

Brookes’s Club House, St. James’s-street.”

“TO LORD FOLEY.

“I am perfectly of Lord Foley’s opinion, that too much time has been

lost in this affair; but I beg to ask to whom is that delay to be

ascribed? Since every circumstance has been made public, and since so

much has passed between the parties, I considered it necessary, on that

account alone, to demand ‘the distinct grounds on which Lord Petersham

calls upon me.’ Lord Foley presents me with an alternative which is

wholly out of the question. I am aware of no ‘false reports’ in currency

against Lord Petersham, and if Lord Foley means that I could be capable

of withdrawing any explanation I had once given, I must repel such an

insinuation with indignation, and I will not permit any person to

dictate that line of conduct to me which is alone consistent with my own

honour to point out. I now, therefore, name three o’clock P.M., at Combe

Wood, near Kingston, where I shall expect to meet Lord Petersham.

“T. WEBSTER WEDDERBURNE.”

“I have received your letter, appointing three o’clock to-morrow

afternoon, to meet Lord Petersham at Combe Wood, which shall be

punctually complied with.

“From yours,

“FOLEY.

“Brookes’s, Friday night.”

A meeting, in consequence of the above correspondence, took place

between the parties on the following afternoon, at three P.M., attended

by Lord Foley and Mr. Kerr, the former as the friend of Lord Petersham,

the latter as that of Mr. Webster Wedderburne; when, after exchanging

two shots, each without effect, the seconds interfered, and the affair

terminated.

BETWEEN M. MANUEL AND M. BEAUMONT.

April 10, 1821.

The following singular and shocking duel took place in Paris. The

circumstances which led to the sad result are extremely curious. One of

the parties was M. Manuel, a Pole, a man of great respectability and of

large fortune: he was about fifty years of age, and the father of six

children, by the wife who survives him. M. Beaumont, the other party, is

a single man, between thirty and forty, likewise of considerable

property, and a native of Geneva. They were both exchange brokers.

About five or six months ago, M. Manuel, who lived on the most

affectionate terms with his wife, received an anonymous letter, saying

that she was unfaithful to him. He tore the letter with contempt, and

dismissed the matter from his mind. In about a fortnight he received a

second letter, containing the same intimation; and this he treated like

the first. In a few days he received a third, which stated, that as he

was too incredulous to be convinced, except by ocular proof, he might

have that proof the very next day, if he chose. The writer then told him

to go at two o’clock to a particular house in a particular street, and

to make a certain signal which he described, and he would then have no

doubt of the writer’s veracity. M. Manuel went accordingly at the time

designated to the house in question, and made the described signal. The

door was instantly opened by a female, whom he knew to be his wife, but

who did not at first recognise him, but throwing herself into his arms

called him by the name of Beaumont. The husband was now convinced. He

determined to leave Paris immediately; he converted his French property

into disposeable effects, and set off for his native place, Warsaw.

Before he went, he proffered forgiveness to his wife, and even agreed to

live with her, provided she would abandon her paramour. This the mother

of six children refused to do; and the husband left Paris without her.

A few days before the fatal event he returned, and reappeared on the

exchange. Here he met M. Beaumont: a violent altercation ensued; and the

result was a challenge, and a positive agreement, that one at least

should not come out of the field alive. They met the next morning,

fired, and M. Manuel was killed on the spot by a pistol shot in the

breast. M. Beaumont shortly after fled to Switzerland, to escape the

storm of indignation which exhibited itself against him at Paris; his

colleagues on the exchange having come to a resolution never to transact

business with him again.

The following curious circumstance occurred at the funeral of M. Manuel.

When the body arrived at the church of St. Denys, in the Rue Caumartin,

the authorities refused to receive it, because M. Manuel had been killed

in a duel. The populace, however, insisted on its being received, and,

after some delay, it was taken in. It was then found that no priest was

present to perform the necessary rites: a second disturbance took place,

and at length one appeared, but not habited in his canonicals; a fresh

outcry, however, induced the priest to robe himself, and the service was

performed in the usual manner. The body was afterwards carried to the

cemetery of Père la Chaise, and there interred.

BETWEEN MR. WILLIAM BRITTLEBANK AND MR. CUDDIE.

May 22, 1821.

Mr. Cuddie, a Scotchman by birth, and a surgeon in the navy, came about

four years before to reside at Winster, where he began to practise his

profession. An attachment had subsisted for some time before his death

between himself and Miss Brittlebank, the daughter of an eminent

solicitor in the same town; and as she was in a delicate state of

health, he had frequent opportunities of seeing her in his medical

capacity. Mr. Cuddie’s attentions to the lady met with the decided

disapprobation of her family, and it was expressed to him in the

strongest terms. On Monday, the 21st of May, Mr. Cuddie and Miss

Brittlebank were met, whilst walking together, by Mr. William

Brittlebank, her brother; who took his sister away, after some harsh

words had been exchanged between himself and Mr. Cuddie. So improper did

the language of Mr. Cuddie appear to Mr. William Brittlebank, that he

sent a challenge to him on the evening of the same day. To this Mr.

Cuddie returned no answer, and another messenger was dispatched to him

on the same errand the following morning, who was informed by Mr. Cuddie

that he would not meet Mr. William Brittlebank, and therefore should not

reply to his note. In consequence of this, Mr. Spencer, a surgeon,

residing at Bakewell, a friend of both the parties, was sent for by Mr.

W. Brittlebank. He came, and about three o’clock in the afternoon Mr.

William and Mr. Francis Brittlebank, accompanied by Mr. Spencer,

proceeded to Mr. Cuddie’s house. They were here joined by Mr. Andrew

Brittlebank; when Mr. Spencer, going into the house, informed Mr.

Cuddie, that he must either make some apology to Mr. William Brittlebank

or fight. It is stated that he again declined to do either the one or

the other. Subsequently, however, he appears to have consented to give

Mr. W. Brittlebank the satisfaction he required: pistols were furnished

by Mr. Spencer to the parties: they separated to a distance of fifteen

yards on the gravel walk in Mr. Cuddie’s garden, and on the signal being

given they fired. Mr. Cuddie unhappily received the shot of his

antagonist in his bowels, and died on the following day.

A verdict of wilful murder was returned against the three brothers,

Andrew, William, and Francis Brittlebank, and also against Mr. Spencer.

Mr. W. Brittlebank had absconded. The other three were taken into

custody, and conveyed to Derby jail.

The trial of the parties came on in August, before Mr. Justice Park, at

the Derby Assizes. Mr. Denman said, it was his painful duty to state the

circumstances of the case. The prisoners were to be tried for a crime

that was considered one of the heaviest of which human nature was

capable. A murder was charged to have been committed by Mr. William

Brittlebank, and the prisoners stood on their trial for aiding,

abetting, and assisting in the said murder. The deceased, Mr. Cuddie,

had been a surgeon in the navy; he had retired on half-pay, and resided

at Winster, where Mr. Brittlebank, the father of two of the prisoners,

resided. Mr. Cuddie had been on intimate terms with the Brittlebanks,

but their friendship had fallen off in consequence of the attention of

the deceased to Miss Brittlebank, which had been disapproved by the

family. On the 21st of May, the day before the death of Mr. Cuddie, a

letter was brought to him by the servant of Mr. W. Brittlebank,

complaining of an insult which he said he had received, and calling on

the deceased to fight him, in order to expiate that insult. Mr. Cuddie

refused to give any answer to the letter. In consequence of this, on the

following day the prisoner Spencer, who had been sent for from Bakewell,

arrived at Winster, and agreed to go with a message from Mr. W.

Brittlebank, demanding that Cuddie should fight him or make an apology.

Cuddie replied he had no apology to make, and would not meet Mr.

Brittlebank. Spencer carried back this answer, and returned to Cuddie

with a new message; and on the deceased repeating the determination

which he had previously announced, he told him that Mr. W. Brittlebank

was in the garden, and he might see and speak to him if he would not

fight. These were facts to be proved by witnesses, and by the dying

declaration of the deceased, which, by law, could be received as

evidence. Cuddie went into the garden, where he found William

Brittlebank, with his brothers Andrew and Francis, who had been seen to

go from their house to that of Mr. Cuddie. Here Andrew Brittlebank

appeared anxious to prevent the duel, by calling on Mr. Cuddie to make

an apology. This he declined, and pistols were then produced; and Mr. W.

Brittlebank having walked fifteen or sixteen yards from the deceased,

both turned and fired, as he believed. A ball had been found near the

spot on which Cuddie stood; one had been sought for, but in vain, near

that where Mr. Brittlebank had taken his place. He, however, did not

mean to attach importance to that circumstance; he believed that Mr. W.

Brittlebank had exposed his own life to the same risk which he forced

Mr. Cuddie to run. The contrary was no part of the case for the

prosecution. When, however, four persons were found going to the house

of one, for the purpose of forcing him to fight a duel, though the duel

might be conducted most fairly, according to the laws of honour, it was

murder, under certain circumstances, in the eye of the law. Mr. Cuddie

received the ball fired from the pistol of William Brittlebank; he was

then carried into the kitchen, he believed, by Spencer and Andrew

Brittlebank. What followed would be proved by witnesses; and he expected

it would be proved, that Andrew Brittlebank had at first denied having

been present; but when the deceased stated him to be there, he then

said, “Well, since you say so, did I not try to prevent the duel, by

pressing you to offer something in the shape of an apology?” William

Brittlebank had said, that the deceased must consider Spencer as his

friend; and it would be shown, that when Cuddie, in a dying state, had

been pressed to declare the duel had been a fair one, he declined doing

so, though aware of his situation, sometimes by expressions, and at

others by actions of dissent, such as shaking his head; and he certainly

died without any such admission. Should the evidence fail to make out

the charge, those concerned for the prosecution would be most happy to

hear of a verdict of acquittal: should the facts be proved, their

righteous verdict must be given; and, painful as it might be to

themselves and all who heard it, they would have but one duty to

perform.

A variety of witnesses were called, who proved the circumstances under

which Mr. Cuddie lost his life. It appeared that he had received much

provocation; but it appeared that the prisoners had endeavoured to give

him every assistance after he received the wound. The following is a

copy of the declaration made by Mr. Cuddie on his death-bed:—

“The declaration of William Cuddie, of Winster, surgeon, made before me,

Philip Gell, Esq., one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the

county of Derby, this 22nd day of May, 1821, who saith, that he was

called upon by William Brittlebank, of Winster, to fight a duel, and

that he wished to avoid doing so. That Edmund Spencer, of Bakewell,

surgeon, came to him on the 22nd of May, instant, and told him that

William Brittlebank and his brothers were in the garden waiting for him,

and that he, William Cuddie, must make an apology, or fight. That he,

William Cuddie, went to the garden, and refused to make an apology. That

Edmund Spencer opened his coat and showed him two pistols, one of which

he took, and William Brittlebank took the other; that they separated to

the distance of fifteen yards, or more. That Edmund Spencer threw up his

hat as a signal, and they both fired their pistols as near together as

possible.”

The prisoners read written defences, in which they declared it to have

been their object to prevent the duel, and procure an apology from the

deceased. A number of persons of high respectability gave them excellent

characters, and the judge having summed up, the jury, after an absence

of an hour and twenty minutes, returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” in

favour of the prisoners; who, deeply affected by their awful situation,

on hearing the decision, which restored them to society, all bowed their

heads, as in gratitude to the Almighty for their deliverance.

BETWEEN SIR ALEXANDER BOSWELL, BART., OF AUCHINLECK, AND MR. STUART, OF

DUNCARN.

March 26, 1822.

About eleven o’clock, a meeting took place at Auchtertool, near Balmuto,

in Fifeshire, between Sir Alexander Boswell, of Auchinleck, Bart. eldest

son of James Boswell, the biographer of Dr. Johnson, and James Stuart,

Esq. of Duncarn. Sir Alexander was attended by the Hon. John Douglas,

brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, and Mr. Stuart by the Earl of

Rosslyn. The ball of Mr. Stuart struck Sir Alexander in the shoulder,

shattered the shoulder-blade, and was supposed to have entered the

spine, as his limbs were quite paralysed. Sir Alexander was carried to

Balmuto House, where he expired. The cause of this duel was a song which

appeared in a Glasgow paper, called the Sentinel, on the 26th of

December, and which Mr. Stuart ascertained to have been written by Sir

Alexander. The manner in which Mr. Stuart became possessed of that

information was through a person named Borthwick, concerned in the

Sentinel at the time the article appeared in that paper. Borthwick

delivered the papers into the hands of Mr. Stuart, and from these papers

the discovery of the author of the article mentioned, as well as that of

others, was made.

On the 10th of June, the trial of Mr. Stuart, for the wilful murder of

Sir Alexander, took place in the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh;

present, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Hermand, Lord Gillies, Lord

Pitmilly, and Lord Succoth. The indictment having been read, to which

Mr. Stuart pleaded “Not guilty.”

Mr. Cockburn opened the case on the part of the defender. He stated,

that all who knew Sir Alexander Boswell must be aware that he possessed,

in a very extraordinary degree, the talent of irony. He then detailed

the facts relative to the establishment of the Beacon and the Sentinel

newspapers, the contributions of the deceased to those publications, and

the manner in which Mr. Stuart obtained the fatal evidence. He next

dwelt upon the urbanity and peace-making disposition of Mr. Stuart, and

showed that the deceased had received no provocation from him, to

justify the calumny in which he had indulged against the accused. Having

read the opprobrious passages of the song, he contended, that those

indignities imposed on Mr. Stuart the necessity of acting as he had

done.

The Earl of Rosslyn deposed to the following facts:—At the desire of Mr.

Stuart he waited on Sir Alexander Boswell to ask if he was the author of

the articles in the Glasgow Sentinel. He told Sir Alexander, that if he

would say he was not the writer, and had not sent them to the newspaper,

that would be sufficient. Sir Alexander said it was a delicate affair,

and he thought he should consult with a friend. He consulted Mr.

Douglas, who afterwards told witness that he could not advise Sir

Alexander to give any answer. Witness had copies of a song and a paper,

signed “Ignotus” when he called on Sir Alexander. The song contained two

direct imputations of cowardice. At the wish of Sir Alexander, who had

affairs to settle, it was agreed between Mr. Douglas and witness, that a

delay of fourteen days should take place, and that the meeting should be

on the Continent. Witness subsequently asked Mr. Douglas, if there was

not a possibility of not carrying the affair any further; and told him

Mr. Stuart would be content to treat the song as a very bad joke,

provided Sir Alexander would say he did not intend any reflection on Mr.

Stuart’s courage. Mr. Douglas said, he had no hope that Sir Alexander

would say any such thing. Sir Alexander changed his mind about meeting

on the Continent; and it was finally settled that it should take place

at Auchtertool. They met: the ground was measured twelve long paces.

Witness gave the word: they fired, and Sir Alexander Boswell fell. Mr.

Stuart advanced with great anxiety towards Sir Alexander, but witness

hurried him to go away. Before any thing took place on the ground, Mr.

Stuart asked witness if it was not fit that he should make a bow to Sir

Alexander, and express his wish for a reconciliation. Witness thought it

right. Mr. Stuart advanced towards Sir Alexander, apparently for that

purpose: Sir Alexander’s back was then turned, and he appeared to be

walking away from Mr. Stuart. In the whole of Mr. Stuart’s conduct there

was no appearance of personal ill-will or resentment against Sir

Alexander; but only an anxiety to defend his own character from the

imputations with which it had been assailed, particularly from that of

cowardice. His conduct, from first to last, was cool, composed, and

temperate. On the field, witness desired him to present his side and not

his bust: Mr. Stuart replied, “I do not think I ought to take an aim.”

Never, from all his acquaintance with Mr. Stuart, knew a man less

quarrelsome or less vindictive.

Mr. Douglas confirmed Lord Rosslyn’s statement respecting the interviews

and conversations that had taken place. On their way to the ground Sir

Alexander consulted witness as to firing in the air or not. Witness said

he must consult his own feelings on that point. Sir Alexander said, he

had, perhaps, in an unhappy moment, injured Mr. Stuart, and therefore he

should fire in the air. Witness said that was exactly his opinion. After

Sir Alexander fell, the only words he spoke to witness were, that he

regretted he had not made his fire in the air more decided than it had

been. On the journey to the ground, a conversation took place in the

carriage, as to the possibility of an amicable adjustment. Sir Alexander

said he was convinced there was not any: he did not know whether from an

opinion that Mr. Stuart could do nothing else than fight, or whether

from his own resolution: he rather thought the latter. Mr. Stuart

conducted himself in every respect as became a man of honour and

courage.

Dr. Wood said, he had accompanied Sir Alexander to the field; he did not

see any pistols fired; he had instructed the other surgeon, that they

ought to turn their backs and not see the firing, but that as soon as

they heard the report they should turn, and run to the spot as speedily

as possible. The pistols were fired in quick succession: on going to the

spot, they found Sir Alexander wounded in the shoulder; they extracted

two pieces of bone; the first was extracted by himself, and the other by

Mr. Liston: he accompanied Sir Alexander to Balmuto House, and attended

him till three the next day; when he died. In the carriage, on the way

to the ground, Sir Alexander expressed his decided opinion, that Mr.

Stuart could have done nothing else but call him out. He also declared

his intention to fire in the air, and on getting out of the carriage he

said, “Now, gentlemen, observe that it is my fixed resolution to fire in

the air.”

Mr. Liston, surgeon, said that Mr. Stuart called upon him on the morning

of the 26th of March, and requested him to go to the country with him;

and, when on the Fife side, he informed him he was to fight a duel with

Sir Alexander Boswell. He said he had no malice against Sir Alexander,

and if he had the misfortune to hit him, he wished it might be on the

great toe, as a gentleman in England had done lately on a similar

occasion.

A letter from Sir Alexander Boswell to Robert Maconochie, Esq. dated the

24th of March, was put in, containing the following passage:—“Last

night, on my arrival, I received a letter from Lord Rosslyn, that he

wished me to appoint an hour as early as possible, that he might make a

communication to me; this, I suppose, is in reference to some of these

squibs. I do not know who the offended party may be; but even if it

should be Mr. James Stuart himself, I shall give him a meeting. In

order, however, to obviate many of those circumstances which follow such

transactions, I mean that the meeting shall take place on the Continent,

say Calais; and I wish to put your friendship so far to the test, as to

request you to be my friend on this occasion. If I had deemed it

expedient to meet my man here, John Douglas would have gone out with me;

but if I should be the successful shot, I should not like the after

proceedings of our courts of law, and therefore wish to pass beyond

their jurisdiction. I know nothing of particulars yet, but write in

prudent anticipation. I know this is perhaps the greatest favour that

can be asked of any man; but by this arrangement you will be implicated

in less trouble, and you won’t mind a trip to France. If my wish is

acceded to, I would propose the meeting to take place about fifteen days

hence, as I wish to make a slight arrangement respecting my estate, and

legalise it by going to kirk and market.”—After a number of witnesses

had been examined, who all bore testimony to Mr. Stuart’s high character

for goodness of temper, kindness of disposition, and honourable and

upright conduct.

The Lord Advocate said, that the charge of murder, according to law,

having been fully proved, the next question was, what defence had been

set up in behalf of the prisoner. The law knew of no other ground of

exculpation, unless a justification founded on self-defence; but there

were no circumstances to warrant such an argument in the present case.

Mr. Jeffrey said, it was not necessary for him to state, that the

essence of all crime lay in the motive; and, after all they had heard,

it could not be disputed that Mr. Stuart went to the ground without one

atom of malice. They had been told, that a duel was an irrational,

barbarous, and pernicious practice; and that he who took it upon himself

to send or accept a challenge was guilty of murder. He did not mean to

offer any apology for the practice. The evils of duelling were ever

uppermost in our view; but this prevented us from noticing, that it had

proved the corrective of greater immoralities. It was known by those

versed in history, that it had superseded the practice of private

assassinations. That a person might not kill another, unless in

self-defence, without incurring the crime of murder, was contrary to the

fact. It might be done in defence of personal property on a nocturnal

assault: a soldier on sentry, or a constable to prevent a rescue, might

justly kill. And if, in such circumstances, it is permissible, you place

a man in a painful dilemma, if, when made by the libeller an outcast of

society, exposed to daily insult, shrunk from by friends, and met with

the blushes of relations, you deprive him of the only means of wiping

away those stains, and vindicating his character to the world. The

analogy of the law, the reason of the thing, and the feelings of all

mankind are against you. In the short reign of Henry the Fourth of

France, about four thousand persons were calculated to have fallen in

single combat; while, in our own country, during one of the longest

reigns, that of George the Third, only sixty or seventy were said to

have fallen; a fact which showed, that the practice did not prevail to

any alarming extent.

The Lord Justice Clerk then proceeded to detail the evidence, and to

illustrate the law as it bore on the case in question. It was, he said,

his bounden duty to state to them what the law of Scotland was, in

relation to such an unfortunate affair as had come before them that day:

but instead of stating the law in his own words, he would rather lay it

before them in the words of the best authors on criminal law, and the

first to whom he would refer was Sir George Mackenzie, who had laid it

down as clear and decided law, that killing in a duel was murder, and

quoted several cases in support of this opinion. The next author to whom

he would refer the jury was Mr. Baron Hume, the standard authority on

criminal law in Scotland. From the quotations read by the Lord Justice

Clerk, it was clear that Mr. Hume completely coincided with Sir George

Mackenzie as to the ancient practice: Mr. Hume states, that in later

times, some juries had taken upon them to deliver verdicts of not guilty

in such cases; but he clearly states, that such decisions were not in

conformity to the strict law of Scotland. Mr. Burnet, also a valuable

author, expressed himself much to the same effect with the other

authors. The law, therefore, on such matters, he considered to be quite

settled. The indictment charged Mr. Stuart with malice, but there was

not even an attempt to substantiate that part of it. On the contrary, it

appeared that he was utterly ignorant who the author of the calumnies

was, before he saw the papers in Glasgow. The jury would also keep in

view the nature of the offers made by Mr. Stuart, his conduct in the

field, as well as after the sad event; the contrition he expressed for

the fatal blow, and the total absence of all vindictive feelings on his

part. In the whole course of his practice he never had heard higher, or

more distinct and discriminate praise bestowed on any character; and, in

good taste, the evidence on this part of the case consisted of

gentlemen, who were opponents to the prisoner in politics. He lamented,

and the public groaned under, the lamentable licentiousness of the

press: he hoped it would cease.

The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, without leaving the box,

returned an unanimous verdict of “Not Guilty.” The Lord Justice Clerk,

then turning to Mr. Stuart, congratulated him on the favourable result.

BETWEEN THE DUKE OF BEDFORD AND THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

May 2, 1822.

On Thursday, the 2nd of May, the following statement appeared in the

evening papers:—“We are authorised to state, that a meeting took place

this morning between the Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Buckingham,

accompanied by Lord Lyndock and Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, in consequence

of words uttered by the former at the Bedford County Meeting. Both

parties fired together at the distance of twelve paces, on a word given,

but without effect; when the Duke of Buckingham, observing that the Duke

of Bedford fired into the air, advanced to his Grace, and remarking,

that for that reason the thing could go no further, said, ‘My Lord Duke,

you are the last man I wish to quarrel with; but you must be aware, that

a public man’s life is not worth preserving unless with honour.’ Upon

which the Duke of Bedford declared, ‘upon his honour, that he meant no

personal offence to the Duke of Buckingham, nor to impute to him any bad

or corrupt motive whatever.’ The parties then shook hands, and the whole

business was terminated most satisfactorily.”

The following are the words used by the Duke of Bedford at the County

Meeting:—“He would now advert to another transaction which he was almost

ashamed to mention: he alluded to a great borough proprietor, now a

noble duke, whose services, and the services of whose adherents in

parliament, had been purchased by Government by conferring high offices

on those adherents. It was an odious thing to mention these

circumstances, but he introduced them for the purpose of asking whether,

if a reform had been effected, such transactions could possibly happen?

The noble duke’s family and connections were, of course, sent back to

their constituents, when they accepted of place; because, when a member

of the House took office, he must return to his constituents, to know

whether they would re-elect him. But how were the individuals in

question sent back? They were not sent back to the people of England;

they were not sent back to those who were free to choose or to reject

them: no, they were sent back to the borough proprietor, to their own

patron, to the person who had engaged in the corrupt traffic; who had,

in fact, made the bargain with Ministers. He would again ask, could such

a circumstance possibly occur, if a reform were effected in the Commons’

House?”

The Duke of Buckingham addressed a letter to the Duke of Bedford,

demanding whether this language was used in allusion to him. The Duke of

Bedford answered that it was, and that he stated the facts because he

believed them to be true. A challenge was, in consequence, sent and

accepted. The duel took place in Kensington Gardens, at a retired spot

previously fixed upon. The Duke of Bedford left St. James’s-square, at

half-past seven on Thursday morning, accompanied by Lord Lyndock, and

drove directly to Kensington Gardens; where the Duke of Buckingham

arrived about the same time, attended by Sir Watkin Williams Wynn.

BETWEEN M. BENJAMIN CONSTANT AND M. FORBIN DES ISSARTS.

June 6, 1822.

On the 6th of June, after the sitting of the Chamber of Deputies,

Benjamin Constant, the celebrated French political writer, demanded

satisfaction of M. Forbin des Issarts, for a letter inserted in the

Paris journal, the Quotidienne of the preceding day. Without any other

explanation, the honourable deputies proceeded on the following morning

to the ground. M. Benjamin Constant was accompanied by General

Sebastiani and M. Girardin, and M. Forbin des Issarts by General the

Count de Bethisy and Colonel Chemoin. M. Benjamin Constant being lame,

he and his adversary were placed at ten paces distant on chairs. They

fired together by signal: neither was hurt, and M. Benjamin Constant

appearing satisfied, the seconds decided that the combat ought to

terminate. According to the French journals, nothing could exceed the

sang-froid that was manifested by the honourable deputies.

BETWEEN M. PINAC AND AN ENGLISHMAN.

July, 1822.

The following account of a fatal duel which took place in the town of

Bagnères, in the department of Upper Pyrenees, is given in a letter to

the editor of the Journal des Débats, of the 29th of July:—“A deplorable

event has just taken place in this town. The unfortunate young Pinac was

interred this day; having been killed in a duel with an Englishman. The

affair did not arise out of any personal quarrel. The Englishman, whose

name is not known, being in the reading-room of Frescati, wrote on the

margin of a pamphlet relating to the battle of Toulouse, that ‘Every

thing in it was false; that Lord Wellington had gained a complete

victory; and that the French army was indebted to his generosity for not

having been put to the sword.’ M. Pinac, a young officer, not in actual

service, on being made acquainted with this circumstance, called the

Englishman to account for having written these words. The authorities

did every thing in their power to prevent the duel; but their

precautions proved ineffectual, and Pinac, having received a ball in his

belly, died some hours afterwards.”

BETWEEN GENERAL PEPE AND GENERAL CARASCOSA.

February, 1823.

In the year 1821, the Neapolitan general, Carascosa, announced his

determination of calling out Lieutenant-General Pepe, late commander of

the Neapolitan forces. Very shortly after General Pepe’s arrival in

London, which was on the 1st of February, 1823, he received a letter

from General Carascosa, in which that officer, after charging General

Pepe with conduct injurious to his reputation, avowed his opinion that

military revolutions were, in all cases, contrary to the principles of

honour; and that any change in the government of Naples was unnecessary,

still less in that of Spain. The letter concluded with a challenge in

the usual terms. To this letter General Pepe replied, by declaring his

opinion, that every free state was indebted for its liberty to military

revolution, not excepting even England; that the Spaniards were now a

prey to civil anarchy, only because certain individuals calling

themselves Liberals were, in fact, hostile to the constitution of the

Cortes; and that he had employed the authority which his rank and his

command had given him at Naples, to resist the despotism of a government

which, while it rendered the people miserable, was of no actual

advantage to the reigning dynasty. He concluded by accepting the

challenge.

On the 20th of February, the generals met. Count Santa Rosa, ex-minister

of war of Piedmont, attended General Pepe, and M. Brunet, a French

gentleman, General Carascosa. The weapons were swords, and the

combatants engaged; but at the second pass, General Pepe’s sword snapped

short near the guard; upon which the seconds interfered, and the combat,

as is usual in such cases, was deferred.

A second meeting took place on the 28th of February, not far from Kew

Bridge. On engaging, General Carascosa attacked with great impetuosity;

but after several passes on both sides, General Pepe, seizing his

adversary’s sword with his left hand, disarmed him, and placing the

point of his sword at his breast, had his life in his power. Here the

affair would have terminated, but General Carascosa, on recovering his

sword, renewed the combat; which was warmly maintained, until he was

finally disabled by a thrust from General Pepe in the right shoulder.

General Pepe, seeing his adversary incapable of further defence,

declined availing himself of his advantage; and thus the duel

terminated.

BETWEEN COLONEL GRAVES AND CAPTAIN LACY.

May, 1823.

The following account of the proceedings taken by the Superior Court of

Law for New Kent County, in consequence of a projected duel between

Colonel Graves and Captain Lacy, is from the Virginia Times, of the 23d

of May:—The Superior Court of Law for New Kent County tried and

determined five several presentments, found by the grand jury against

Colonel Richard Graves, in each of which the defendant was charged with

a violation of the act to suppress duelling. The case, during the last

session of the legislature, had been laid before that body by Captain

Archibald Lacy, with the view of removing Colonel Graves from his seat.

The several presentments charged Richard Graves; first, with sending a

challenge to Archibald Lacy to fight a duel; second, to fight a duel

with poison; third, with sending a challenge to Archibald Lacy to fight

a duel in the following manner—that two cups should be filled, the one

with pure water and the other with deadly poison, and that two tickets

should be rolled up and put in a hat, and they, Graves and Lacy, should

draw lots who should drink the cup of poison; fourth, with sending a

challenge to fight a duel with knives, &c.; and fifth, for challenging

him to draw a lot for a cup of poison, which cup was to be drunk by the

person to whom the same should fall by allotment.

To these charges the defendant pleaded not guilty; and the evidence went

to establish the said charges. Verdict, “Not Guilty.”

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. BATTIER.

May 6, 1824.

A duel took place between the Marquis of Londonderry and Ensign Battier,

late a cornet of the 10th Royal Hussars, in consequence of a letter

which he had published, in reference to his dispute with the officers of

that regiment, in which he had stated, that the noble lord “sheltered

himself under his rank.” Sir Henry Hardinge, Secretary to the Ordnance,

was the Marquis’s second, and the second of Mr. Battier was Colonel

Western. They met at a distance of ten paces. Sir Henry gave the choice

of his pistols to Colonel Western. The word was given. Lord

Londonderry’s shot passed Mr. Battier on the right; while Mr. Battler’s

pistol missed fire. The marquis requested his antagonist might have

another shot; but this Colonel Western declined, on the part of Mr.

Battier, and thus the firing ended.

On the 13th of May the following General Order was issued from the Horse

Guards:—“The Commander-in-chief having received a report from

Lieutenant-General the Marquis of Londonderry, that his lordship had

accepted a challenge to fight a duel with Ensign Battier, late a cornet

of the 10th Royal Hussars, upon a point which his lordship considered to

be one of military duty, his Royal Highness has felt it incumbent upon

him to submit to the King a transaction at variance with the principles

of subordination, and therefore of a tendency injurious to the

discipline of the army. The King has consequently conveyed to his Royal

Highness his Majesty’s commands, to express his Majesty’s concern and

displeasure, that an officer of Lord Londonderry’s high rank and

military reputation should have committed himself in personal collision

with an inferior officer, by accepting a challenge for any supposed

aggression proceeding from the exercise of his authority as Colonel of

the Regiment.”

The London Gazette of the 18th announced that the name of Mr. Battier

was erased from the half-pay list of the army.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN GOURLAY AND MR. WESTALL.

October 30, 1824.

At the preceding Doncaster races, a Mr. Westall lost a bet of seventy

guineas to Capt. Gourlay, who also lost a bet at the same time to a

friend of Mr. Westall. Captain Gourlay and Mr. Westall met at the Bull

Inn, Edinburgh, recognising each other with apparent friendship. After

some conversation, the Captain reminded Mr. Westall of his bet; which

that gentleman acknowledged, but added, that he was authorised by his

friend to set off the bet which he had won from Captain Gourlay, against

that which he, Mr. Westall, had lost. An altercation ensuing, the

Captain applied the term swindler to Mr. Westall; who, in return, called

the Captain a liar. On this the Captain, snatching up the poker, made a

blow at Mr. Westall’s head: the poker missed its aim, but descending on

his shoulder, was snapped in two by the force of the blow; which, for

some minutes, rendered him insensible. On recovering, Mr. Westall went

into the coffee-room; where, after much warm language, a meeting was

arranged. The parties met at South Ferry; and, together with their

seconds, crossed in the boat, and proceeded to an eminence; where,

preliminaries being adjusted, the parties took their stations, and

Captain Gourlay, receiving Mr. Westall’s ball, fell dead upon the spot.

BETWEEN MR. LAMBTON, AFTERWARDS EARL OF DURHAM, AND MR. BEAUMONT.

July 1, 1826.

At Alnwick, on the 30th of June, after the close of the election for the

county of Northumberland, at which Mr. Beaumont, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Bell,

and Lord Howick were the candidates, Mr. Beaumont, while Lord Howick was

addressing the freeholders, advanced and said, “I will now drag forth,

not Lord Howick, but the head and front of all these proceedings. I

accuse Mr. Lambton of prompting Lord Howick; which I have seen him do at

every sentence of his speech.” Mr. Lambton declared he had not. Upon

which, Mr. Beaumont called out, “Mr. Lambton, gentlemen, says it is not

the fact; I say it is false.” Mr. Lambton instantly stepped forward and

said, “I am ready to wave any intention of addressing you upon a matter

relating personally to myself, being perfectly confident, that what has

just occurred requires a very different answer from any which it can

receive from these hustings, and which, let Mr. Beaumont be assured, it

most certainly shall have. Can any one who heard Lord Howick believe

that he wanted any man’s whisper to give utterance to his sentiments?

Whatever may be Mr. Beaumont’s reasons for his conduct, if he wishes to

engage in a private quarrel, he shall not be baulked.”

Upon leaving the hustings, Mr. Lambton, accompanied by the Hon. Charles

Grey, retired to a house, to which all the efforts of his family to

trace him were ineffectual. At length it was ascertained that he had

dispatched Captain Bacon Grey to Mr. Beaumont, desiring that gentleman

to hold a friend in readiness to receive an immediate communication from

General Grey, for whom the Hon. Charles Grey had rode off express to

Howick. In less than an hour the General arrived in Alnwick, and had a

conference with Captain Plunkett, on the part of Mr. Beaumont. The

result was, an appointment for a hostile meeting at nine o’clock, at the

Moor, three miles from the town. On reaching the ground, Mr. Lambton did

not find Mr. Beaumont; but he shortly after received a communication

from him by Captain Plunkett, stating that the Captain, finding Mr.

Beaumont beset by a crowd on the way, had advised him to return, as no

doubt the meeting would be disturbed. They, therefore, made the best of

their way to Belford, North Durham; from which they passed to a field

adjoining the strand at Bamborough; where, about three in the afternoon,

and amidst heavy rain, Mr. Lambton and Mr. Beaumont were placed on the

ground, at a distance of twelve paces, and immediately exchanged shots,

without effect. Captain Plunkett was preparing to re-load Mr. Beaumont’s

pistol, when General Grey stepped up to him, and said that enough had

been done for the honour of the parties, and that Mr. Lambton had never

thought of requiring an apology. Captain Plunkett replied, that his

friend was there for the purpose of giving satisfaction; but that if

General Grey thought proper to withdraw Mr. Lambton, he, Captain

Plunkett, must necessarily withdraw Mr. Beaumont. Mr. Lambton was then

withdrawn; and here the matter terminated to the satisfaction, it was

believed, of all present, though not a word passed between the

principals.

The following is the official statement signed by the seconds:—“In

consequence of some language which occurred on the hustings at Alnwick

yesterday, a meeting took place this afternoon at Bamborough, between

John George Lambton, Esq., M.P., and Thomas Wentworth Beaumont, Esq.,

when, after an exchange of shots, the affair terminated to the

satisfaction of the seconds.—July 1, 1826.”

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS DE LIVRON AND M. DU TRONE.

November 18, 1826.

A duel between the Marquis de Livron and M. Du Trone took place at

mid-day, in the forest of Senart, near the château of Madame de Cayla.

The whole affair had the appearance of an act of madness, and resembled

more a tournament than a modern duel. M. Du Trone, the young advocate,

was habited in the costume of a Greek chief: each combatant was mounted

on horseback, and had three seconds. The parties were armed with sabres,

and, on the onset, M. Livron was dismounted by the concussion of the

horses. Both were slightly wounded, and the seconds then thought proper

to interfere. What adds to the singularity of this duel is, that it took

place in the presence of a hundred and fifty spectators.

BETWEEN MR. BRIC AND MR. HAYES.

December 26, 1826.

At Dublin, on the 26th of December, Mr. Bric, the counsellor, fell a

victim to false notions of honour. On the preceding day, he was

returning from the post-office, when the Cork mail drove up. Mr. Hayes,

with other gentlemen, were talking of the contested election at Cork;

and the majority of Hutchinson over Callaghan being announced, Mr. Bric

said, rather hastily, that “he rejoiced at the prospect of the defeat of

that rascal Callaghan;” alluding to his decided hostility to the claims

of the Roman Catholics. Mr. Hayes, a cousin and active friend of Mr.

Callaghan, looking at Mr. Bric, replied, “Whoever calls Mr. Callaghan a

rascal is a scoundrel and liar.” He then handed his card to Mr. Bric,

who returned his own. On the following morning, at half-past seven, they

met in a field near the Broadstone, at Phibsborough, on the north side

of the town. The ground being measured, the combatants took their

position. Mr. Bric was previously observed to shake hands with several

of his friends, the sight of whom agitated him a little. He mistook the

signal “present” for “fire,” and for an instant elevated his pistol;

but, discovering his mistake, again dropped it, and apologized for

having been premature. The signal was given immediately afterwards. Mr.

Bric fired: his ball entered the earth, and after drawing the trigger,

he wheeled round and threw up his left arm, thereby exposing his person

to his adversary’s fire. Mr. Hayes’s ball entered Mr. Bric’s left side,

and, passing through his body came out under his left arm. He reeled,

dropped his pistol, and went down gently. He at first was not conscious

of the extent of his danger, and said rather calmly, he hoped the wound

would not prove serious. The surgeons, however, on examining it,

pronounced it fatal; and he expired in less than an hour. Mr. Bric was a

native of Tralee. In 1819, he came to England, and attached himself, in

quality of reporter, to one of the London daily journals. On his return

to Dublin in 1824, he was called to the bar, and almost immediately took

a leading part in the agitation of the Roman Catholic question.

BETWEEN M. GOULARD AND M. CAIRE.

February 21, 1827.

The following duel took place near Paris. A student of pharmacy, named

Goulard, while playing at billiards, quarreled with a young medical

student of the name of Caire. Their mutual friends having in vain tried

every means of persuasion to prevent the consequences of the dispute,

accompanied the young men without the walls of Paris. Goulard seemed

disposed to submit to an arrangement, but Caire absolutely refused. The

seconds measured the ground, and the first shot having been won by

Goulard, he fired, and Caire fell down dead. Goulard did not appear

during the prosecution; he continued absent on the day fixed for

judgment, and the court, conformably to the code of criminal

proceedings, pronounced on the charge, without the intervention of a

jury. It acquitted Goulard of premeditation; but condemned him, for

contumacy, to perpetual hard labour, and to be branded.

BETWEEN THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON AND THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA.

March 21, 1829.

In consequence of the part which the Duke of Wellington took, as

Minister of the country, in bringing in the Roman Catholic Relief Bill,

the Earl of Winchilsea, who was strongly opposed to the measure,

addressed a letter, on the 14th of March, to the Secretary of the

Committee for establishing the King’s College, London, which contained

the following passage:—

“I was one of those who, at first, thought the proposed plan might be

practicable, and prove an antidote to the principles of the London

University. I was not, however, very sanguine in my expectations, seeing

many difficulties likely to arise in the execution of the suggested

arrangement; and I confess that I felt rather doubtful as to the

sincerity of the motives that had actuated some of the prime movers in

this undertaking, when I considered that the noble Duke at the head of

his Majesty’s Government had been induced, on this occasion, to assume a

new character, and to step forward himself as the public advocate of

religion and morality. Late political events have convinced me, that the

whole transaction was intended as a blind to the Protestant and

high-church party; that the noble Duke, who had, for some time previous

to that period, determined upon ‘breaking in upon the constitution of

1688,’ might the more effectually, under the cloak of some outward show

of zeal for the Protestant religion, carry on his insidious designs for

the infringement of our liberties, and the introduction of Popery into

every department of the state.”

This letter was published in the newspapers, and gave rise to the

following correspondence:—

(1.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA.

“London, March 16, 1829.

“MY LORD,

“I have just perused, in the Standard newspaper of this day, a letter

addressed to Henry Nelson Coleridge, Esq., dated Eastwell Park, March

14, signed Winchilsea and Nottingham; and I shall be very much obliged

to your lordship if you will let me know whether that letter was written

by you, and published by your authority.

I am, &c. WELLINGTON.”

(2.) FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.

“London, March 18, 1829.

“MY LORD,

“I wrote to your lordship, on the 16th, a letter, of which I enclose a

duplicate, as, not having yet received an answer from your lordship, I

am apprehensive that the original may not have reached you, although I

directed it to your house in Suffolk Street. I am just going to Windsor

to attend his Majesty, but I shall be in town this night.

I am, &c.

“WELLINGTON.”

(3.) FROM THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

“Eastwell Park, March 18, 1829.

“MY LORD,

“The enclosed is a copy of the answer which I returned, by this day’s

post, to your grace’s letter, which only reached me this morning. I

intend leaving this place for London to-morrow morning, and expect to be

at 7, Suffolk Street, between four and five in the afternoon. I have,

&c.

“WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM.”

(4.) FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.

“Eastwell Park, Ashford, March 18, 1829.

“MY LORD,

“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your grace’s letter of

the 16th instant, and I beg to inform you that the letter addressed to

H. N. Coleridge, Esq. was inserted in the Standard by my authority. As I

had publicly given my approbation and sanction to the establishment of

the King’s College, London, last year, by his Grace the Duke of

Wellington’s becoming a subscriber to it, I thought it incumbent upon

me, in withdrawing my name, also publicly to state my reasons for so

doing.

“I have, &c.

WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM.”

(5.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA.

“London, March 19.

“MY LORD,

“I have had the honour of receiving your lordship’s letter of the 18th

instant. Your lordship is certainly the best judge of the mode to be

adopted of withdrawing your name from the list of subscribers to the

King’s College. In doing so, however, it does not appear necessary to

impute to me, in no measured terms, disgraceful and criminal motives for

my conduct in the part which I took in the establishment of the college.

No man has a right, whether in public or in private, by speech, or in

writing, or in print, to insult another, by attributing to him motives

for his conduct, public or private, which disgrace or criminate him. If

a gentleman commits such an act indiscreetly, in the heat of debate, or

in a moment of party violence, he is always ready to make reparation to

him whom he may thus have injured. I am convinced that your lordship

will, upon reflection, be anxious to relieve yourself from the pain of

having thus insulted a man who never injured or offended you.

I have, &c.

“WELLINGTON.”

Sir Henry Hardinge delivered No. 5. to the Earl of Winchilsea, and was

referred by his lordship to the Earl of Falmouth. The following

memorandum is the substance of the communication made by Sir Henry

Hardinge to Lord Falmouth.

(6.) MEMORANDUM OF SIR HENRY HARDINGE.

“March 19, 8 o’clock, evening.

“Lord Falmouth having expressed a desire to know the extent of

reparation that would be expected, two suggestions, of what appeared to

Sir Henry Hardinge to be the most natural mode of reparation, were drawn

out, upon the distinct understanding that they were not made with a view

to confine Lord Winchilsea’s explanation, either as to the terms or

manner therein stated, but as suggestions as to the course which might

be pursued in bringing the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Sir

Henry Hardinge, therefore, on the part of the Duke of Wellington,

expects _one_ of the _two_ following alternatives:—Either that Lord

Winchilsea should forthwith write to the Secretary of the King’s

College, and express his desire to withdraw his public letter, as one

which attributed motives highly offensive to the Duke of Wellington, and

stating also that, upon reflection, he was not justified in attributing

such motives to his grace, and therefore expresses his regret at having

done so; or, that Lord Winchilsea should write directly to the Duke of

Wellington himself, and make the same acknowledgments to his grace, with

a similar expression of his regret for having attributed motives highly

offensive to his grace, relating to the occasion of his grace having

presided at the meeting of the King’s College in ——, last, —— [which

motives he is now sensible he was not justified in imputing to his

grace]. In either case, it is expected that a letter, so written, should

be published by the Secretary of the London College in the Standard,

being the same paper as that which contained Lord Winchilsea’s original

letter.

“Thursday, half past nine o’clock, evening.”

“Friday morning, March 20. The paragraph within crotchets was not

desired to be retained in the last interview with Lord Falmouth last

night.

H. H.”

(7.) MEMORANDUM OF LORD WINCHILSEA.

“March 19.

“Whether I may determine to give an explanation of my letter published

in the Standard on Monday last, will depend upon the correctness of my

belief that I had grounds for the opinions complained of by the noble

duke, as therein supposed. I am ready to allow that I was mistaken in my

view of the noble duke’s conduct, as expressed in my letter to Mr.

Coleridge, on the 14th instant, and to state my regret at having so

expressed it, provided the noble duke will state on his part, that at

the time he came forward to preside at the meeting for the establishment

of King’s College, London, he did not contemplate the measures which are

now in progress for Roman Catholic emancipation; or, to use Mr. Peel’s

words, ‘for breaking in upon the constitution of 1688;’ but without some

statement to that effect from the noble duke, I cannot withdraw the

expressions contained in the above letter.

WINCHILSEA.”

(8.) MEMORANDUM OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

“London, March 20, 1829, in the morning.

“Sir Henry Hardinge has read me a memorandum written by Lord Winchilsea,

and delivered to him by Lord Falmouth, from which it appears that his

lordship is anxious that I should justify myself from the charges

against me contained in his lordship’s address to Mr. Coleridge,

published in the Standard newspaper. I may lament that a nobleman for

whom I feel the highest respect, entertains a bad opinion of me; but I

do not complain, so long as that opinion is not brought before me. I

cannot admit that any man has a right to call me before him to justify

myself from the charges which his fancy may suggest. That of which I

complain is, that the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham should have

published an opinion, that I was actuated by disgraceful and criminal

motives in a certain transaction which took place nearly a year ago. His

lordship, unprovoked, has insulted me by stating in writing, and

authorising the publication of, this opinion. For this insult I

believed, and am not willing to part with the belief, that his lordship

will be anxious to give me reparation.

W.”

(9.) MEMORANDUM OF SIR HENRY HARDINGE.

“Friday, March 20.

“Sir Henry Hardinge delivered to Lord Falmouth a memorandum, on the 20th

of March, from the Duke of Wellington, in reply to one from Lord

Winchilsea last night; in the latter of which it was proposed, as a

preliminary to any explanation, that the Duke of Wellington should

disclaim having contemplated the intentions attributed to his grace by

Lord Winchilsea, which mode of reparation was considered inadmissible.

In the memorandum of the Duke of Wellington, his grace states that his

cause of complaint is in the publication of opinions highly offensive to

him. Whenever, therefore, any terms or mode of reparation, which Lord

Winchilsea may be disposed to offer, are communicated to Sir Henry

Hardinge, he will make them known to the Duke of Wellington, and inform

Lord Winchilsea whether they are satisfactory or not.

HENRY HARDINGE.

“N.B. The original of this delivered to Lord Falmouth.”

(10.) MEMORANDUM OF THE EARL OF FALMOUTH.

“March 20, one o’clock.

“Out of respect for the Duke of Wellington, Lord Falmouth has taken to

Lord Winchilsea the Duke of Wellington’s memorandum, put into his hands

by Sir Henry Hardinge this morning at the War-office, with Sir Henry’s

own note thereon. In reply, Lord Winchilsea does not feel himself in a

situation to comply with the expectation therein expressed, as to the

withdrawal of his public letter. Lord Winchilsea, therefore, desires

that Lord Falmouth will decline so doing on his (Lord W’s) behalf.

“FALMOUTH.”

(11.) FROM SIR H. HARDINGE TO LORD FALMOUTH.

“21st March, two o’clock.

“MY LORD,

“I feel it to be my duty, before I make a final communication to your

lordship, to ascertain, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that Lord

Winchilsea declines to give the reparation which the Duke of Wellington

considers himself entitled to receive. I am, my lord, your obedient

servant.

HENRY HARDINGE.”

(12.) FROM LORD FALMOUTH TO SIR HENRY HARDINGE.

“London, March 20, 1829, half past three, P.M.

“SIR,

“In reply to your note, stating that you wish to ascertain positively

whether Lord Winchilsea declines to give the reparation which the Duke

of Wellington considers himself entitled to receive, I feel myself

unable to say more than to refer you to the note which I delivered to

you, as signed by him, in answer to the Duke of Wellington’s memorandum

of this day; and that if by the word ‘reparation,’ any withdrawal of

Lord Winchilsea’s public letter, or expression of regret for its

contents, be expected, he does not feel himself in a situation to comply

with such expectation. I am, sir, your obedient humble servant,

FALMOUTH.”

(13.) FROM SIR HENRY HARDINGE TO THE EARL OF FALMOUTH.

“11, Whitehall Place, March 20, 1829.

“MY LORD,

“I send your lordship a letter from the Duke of Wellington to Lord

Winchilsea. I communicated to his grace the note of three, P.M.,

declining on Lord W.’s part to make any reparation, or give any

explanation, &c. of his lordship’s conduct towards the Duke of

Wellington; and, in order to avoid the possibility of any mistake, I

repeat what has already been verbally arranged between us, that the Duke

of Wellington will be at the place appointed at eight o’clock to-morrow

morning.

H. HARDINGE.”

(14.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO LORD WINCHILSEA.

“London, March 20, half-past six, P.M.

“MY LORD,

“Sir Henry Hardinge has communicated to me a memorandum, signed by your

lordship, dated one, P.M., and a note from Lord Falmouth, dated three,

P.M. Since the insult, unprovoked on my part, and not denied by your

lordship, I have done every thing in my power to induce your lordship to

make me reparation, but in vain. Instead of apologising for your own

conduct, your lordship has called upon me to explain mine. The question

for me now to decide is this—Is a gentleman, who happens to be the

King’s minister, to submit to be insulted by any gentleman who thinks

proper to attribute to him disgraceful or criminal motives for his

conduct as an individual? I cannot doubt of the decision which I ought

to make on this question. Your lordship is alone responsible for the

consequences, I now call upon your lordship to give me that satisfaction

for your conduct which a gentleman has a right to require, and which a

gentleman never refuses to give. I have the honour, &c.

“WELLINGTON.”

(15.) FROM LORD FALMOUTH TO SIR HENRY HARDINGE.

“London, March 20, 1829, half-past eleven, P.M.

“SIR,

“When I received the favour of your note, with its enclosure, soon after

eight o’clock this evening, I had just sat down to dinner, and being in

company I could not read it without exciting some suspicion, till some

time afterwards. I had then to find Lord Winchilsea. All which I mention

in excuse for delay, in case you should think it of importance; but I

apprehend that, after an arrangement made before five o’clock this

afternoon, his grace’s letter to Lord Winchilsea, calling upon him for

satisfaction in the usual way, was meant merely as a customary form on

such occasions. All matters will take place of course to-morrow morning

at eight o’clock, according to that arrangement. I have the honour to

be, &c.

“FALMOUTH.”

(16.) FROM LORD WINCHILSEA TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

“Suffolk-street, Friday night, eleven, P.M.

“MY LORD,

“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your grace’s note. I

have already had occasion to communicate to your grace, that, under

existing circumstances, I did not feel myself in a situation to comply

with what was required of me in regard to my public letter. The

satisfaction which your grace has demanded, it is of course impossible

for me to decline. I have the honour to be, &c.

“WINCHILSEA.”

The Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Winchilsea met at the place

appointed (Battersea fields), on the following morning. The parties

having taken their ground. Lord Winchilsea received the Duke of

Wellington’s fire, and fired in the air. After some discussion, the

accompanying memorandum was delivered by Lord Falmouth to Sir Henry

Hardinge, and accepted by Sir Henry, as a satisfactory reparation to the

Duke of Wellington:—

MEMORANDUM.

“Having given the Duke of Wellington the usual satisfaction for the

affront he conceived himself to have received from me, through my public

letter of Monday last, and having thus placed myself in a different

situation from that in which I stood when his grace communicated with

me, through Sir Henry Hardinge and Lord Falmouth, on the subject of that

letter, before the meeting took place, I do not now hesitate to declare,

of my own accord, that, in apology, I regret having individually

published an opinion which the noble duke states, in his memorandum of

yesterday, to have charged him with disgraceful and criminal motives in

a certain transaction which took place nearly a year ago. I also declare

that I shall cause this expression of regret to be inserted in the

Standard newspaper, as the same channel through which the letter in

question was given to the public.”

* * * * *

A copy of the preceding correspondence having been sent by Sir Henry

Hardinge to the evening papers of the same day, the following memorandum

was published by Lord Falmouth on Monday the 22nd:—

* * * * *

“Lord Falmouth first became concerned in the affair between the Duke of

Wellington and Lord Winchilsea shortly before he met Sir Henry Hardinge

on the subject, on the evening of Thursday, the 19th. Until that time,

Lord Falmouth knew nothing whatever either of the previous

correspondence, or of the publication which had led to it, beyond having

seen the letter in the Standard newspaper. It may seem material to

state, that when Sir Henry called upon Lord Falmouth, at twelve o’clock

at night, with the proposal to omit the words affixed to No. 6 in

parenthesis, it was after Lord Winchilsea’s answer, No. 7, had been

shown to the Duke of Wellington. This point is not quite clear in the

publication of Saturday. Immediately after Lord Winchilsea had received

his grace’s fire, and had fired in the air, Lord Falmouth was the first

to propose satisfactory reparation for Lord Winchilsea’s publication of

his opinion in the Standard newspaper. Lord Falmouth distinctly declared

on the ground, that it never was a question with him whether that

publication was wrong, but merely whether Lord Winchilsea was in a

situation honourably to subscribe to the terms proposed, after he (Lord

Falmouth) was requested to undertake the business. Before the parties

took their ground. Lord Falmouth delivered a sealed letter, which he had

received from Lord Winchilsea on Friday night, to Sir Henry Hardinge,

who returned it after the affair had been settled.”

BETWEEN CAPT. HELSHAM AND LIEUT. CROWTHER.

April 1, 1829.