A duel, attended with a fatal result, took place at Boulogne, on the 1st

of April, between Captain Helsham and Lieutenant Crowther. It arose out

of an objection made by the former to the admission of the latter to a

club established at Boulogne. The objection was, that the lieutenant had

been assaulted in England, and had not behaved like an officer or a

gentleman, by challenging the assaulter. The lieutenant demanded an

apology: this the captain refusing to make, a duel ensued, and

Lieutenant Crowther fell. On the 8th of October 1830, Captain Helsham

was tried, by a special commission, at the Old Bailey, on a charge of

murder, under the Act of the 9th of George IV., in which it is provided,

“that if any of his Majesty’s subjects should be charged in this country

with the murder or manslaughter of any fellow-subject on land abroad,

and beyond his Majesty’s prerogative, it should be lawful, although such

murder or manslaughter be in a foreign land, to try such party accused

of either of these offences in England.”

Mr. William Coksley, a resident at Boulogne, gave the following

evidence:—“I saw the parties on the ground. There were many individuals

present. Mr. Malony put a pistol into Lieutenant Crowther’s hand, who

soon after fired it off. I observed Captain Helsham’s arm raised; and

after some short time his pistol was fired, and Lieutenant Crowther

fell. The ball had passed through his neck; he never spoke afterwards,

and died within half an hour. Captain Helsham walked off the ground

immediately, having told his servant to take his pistols home.”

Mr. Malony, an officer of the 5th Dragoon Guards, who acted as second to

the deceased, said:—“The deceased consulted me, as a friend, on the 31st

of March, respecting something that affected his character. In

consequence of what he told me, I went to Holt’s hotel to meet Mr.

Grady; but before I saw him, Colonel Conway and Captain Helsham came to

me. The captain said, that Lieutenant Crowther was not a fit person for

him to apologize to, or to fight; and he assigned as a reason for it,

that he had been horsewhipped, and had not resented it as a gentleman

and an officer ought to do. I told him, that Lieutenant Crowther assured

me, upon his honour, it was false; and I solicited him to make an

apology. Colonel Conway asked me, whether I came to deliver a hostile

message? I replied, I came there the messenger of peace; and I renewed

my endeavours to prevail on the captain to apologize. Upon which the

prisoner said: ‘An apology, sir! nonsense!’ At length, I delivered a

message, that, if he would not apologize, Mr. Crowther expected he would

meet him in the field. After some further conversation, the captain

said: ‘Well, I give him warning. I am ready to meet him, but I will make

it an affair of business.’ After this, Mr. Grady and myself made an

arrangement for the parties to meet the next day at eleven, at

Napoleon’s column. I accompanied Lieutenant Crowther to the spot. A

number of individuals, a dozen at least, both on horseback and foot,

were present. Mr. Grady said that the captain would have no firing,

unless it was separate. We then proceeded to arrange the manner in which

the duel was to be fought. The captain was in the ditch with us, when we

were loading the pistols. I observed to him, that this was contrary to

all duelling usage. He said, he did not care a damn for the usage; he

would see them loaded. The distance agreed upon was twelve paces. The

parties were to stand with their pistols even down by their sides, until

Mr. Grady pronounced the words, ‘Now, gentlemen!’ and on those words

being pronounced they were to raise their arms, and fire as nearly

together as possible, and no second aim was to be taken. The parties

were then placed. Mr. Grady pronounced the signal loud enough for both

to hear. Lieutenant Crowther immediately raised his arm with rather a

quick motion, fired, and then lowered his arm. Captain Helsham did not

fire till some time after. Not hearing the report of his pistol

immediately after that of Lieutenant Crowther, I looked about, and

observed the captain’s pistol pointed towards his opponent in a position

that, had he fired, the ball would have fallen short, his arm not being

fully raised. He leaned his head to the right to get a good view of the

lieutenant, raised his arm gradually, and did not fire for some seconds,

until he had fairly covered his man; that is, got his pistol in a

direction to him, and was looking along it. He appeared to take a

deliberate aim. He fired, and Mr. Crowther fell. The ball passed through

his neck.”

For the defence it was urged, that there had been no animosity on the

part of the prisoner; who had only obeyed the laws of society, according

to the best of his judgment. The circumstances of the duel had been

examined by the authorities at Boulogne, who considered that it had been

fairly fought, and had therefore liberated him. Colonel Conway stated,

that he had said, in a conversation with Mr. Malony, that it was a pity

two young men should fight upon a matter of so little importance; to

which the latter had replied, that if Captain Helsham refused a meeting,

he should be posted in the town, and publicly horsewhipped. The captain

came out of the room at the time, and heard the observation. After a

number of respectable witnesses had given the prisoner an excellent

character for kindness, generosity, and humanity.

Mr. Justice Bayley charged the jury. They must first, he said, be

satisfied that both the prisoner and the deceased were natural-born

subjects of this realm; secondly, they must be quite certain that the

deceased was killed by the hand of the prisoner; and thirdly, that the

prisoner had so acted as to be guilty of the crime of murder.

Intentionally using means calculated to produce death, if that result

ensued, did most undoubtedly constitute the crime of murder. With regard

to the present case, it appeared, beyond all doubt, that it had arisen

out of a duel. Now, he was bound as a lawyer to tell the jury, that, if

parties went out to fight a duel, and death was the result of that

meeting, the surviving parties were equally guilty of the crime of

murder, whether fair or foul means had been used. If they found the

prisoner guilty, they might accompany their verdict with any

recommendation they thought proper.—The jury, having remained out of

court for the space of about twenty minutes, returned with a verdict,

finding the prisoner “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN MR. LAMBRECHT AND MR. CLAYTON.

January 8, 1830.

This day, a duel, which terminated fatally, was fought in Battersea

fields, between Mr. Lambrecht, who had formerly served as a lieutenant

in the 43rd regiment, in America and at Waterloo, and Mr. Oliver

Clayton, a literary gentleman from Ireland. Before daylight, Mr. Clayton

proceeded with his second, Mr. Bigley, to Battersea fields, where Mr.

Lambrecht and his second. Lieutenant Cox, were waiting his arrival. It

was a little after six when all the parties took the ground. After a

short conversation, the signal being given, the pistols were fired; and

Mr. Lambrecht’s ball passing through Mr. Clayton’s body, he immediately

fell. He was conveyed to the Red House, where he died at seven in the

evening. The quarrel took place at Wood’s hotel, Panton Square, during a

discussion respecting the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, of which the

deceased, who had renounced that faith, had been a warm opponent. During

the discussion, Mr. Lambrecht called him a hypocrite; and this led to

the duel. The jury who sat on the body brought in a verdict of “Wilful

murder” against Mr. Lambrecht, the principal, and Lieutenant Cox and Mr.

Bigley, the seconds; and the coroner’s warrant was issued for their

apprehension. On Wednesday, the 13th, Mr. Lambrecht, who had surrendered

himself, was brought to Union Hall for examination. After the duel, the

unhappy man returned to town; but withdrew from his usual residence,

fearing that he should be discovered, and wandered about the streets for

three nights. On Tuesday evening, being quite exhausted, he went into a

public-house, where he drank to excess, and then gave himself up to a

police-officer. After making the statement which will hereafter be

given, Mr. Chambers, the magistrate, told him that it was a most serious

business, and that he must prepare himself for the worst, as the law

would be carried to the fullest extent. The parties were all committed

to prison, to take their trial for the offence.

The said trial took place at Kingston assizes, on the 2nd of April,

before Mr. Justice Bayley. After Mr. Gurney had stated the case, Mr.

Thomas Powell, surgeon at Battersea, gave the following evidence:—“On

the morning of the 8th of January last, I received a communication which

induced me to go out shortly before seven o’clock. I went to the back of

the Red House, Battersea, and found there but three persons, one of them

lying on a board, wounded, with a coat or cloak over him. The wounded

gentleman was taken into the house, and laid on a bed. I found him

wounded on the right side of the belly. It was a small wound, into which

I could have passed the point of my finger. There was a wound also on

the left side. There was nothing to enable me to say it was a gun-shot

wound, had I not known it from other circumstances; but it might have

been produced by a bullet passing through the body. I immediately

pronounced it to be a mortal wound. My answer to the inquiry of the

wounded gentleman was, that it must prove mortal. He asked me, how long

I thought it probable he might survive. I told him I could not speak

positively, but I should suppose he could not survive more than twelve

hours. The wounded gentleman, who told me his name was Clayton,

requested that a clergyman of the Church of England might be sent for.

The clergyman came, and I went into another room. I returned shortly

after, when he begged that there might be no prosecution, and said that

every thing had been conducted fairly and honourably, and that he was to

blame, in being so obstinate as to refuse the apology which had been

offered to him. At this time he was aware he could not live. About two

hours before he died he desired that certain persons might be written

to, and that it might be stated to them, that part of the quarrel was

his being called a hypocrite. I asked him by whom. The answer was, ‘By

the man who shot me, Lambrecht.’”

Thomas Skinner was next examined.—“I work for the landlord of the Red

House; and about half-past six o’clock on the morning of the 8th of

January, when going to my work, I saw the flash of two pistols at one

and the same time, and I heard the reports of both. I was nearly three

hundred yards distant. I turned my back towards them, and one of the

bullets appeared to pass me. When I went towards the place where the

firing was, I saw four men bringing up a man on a board. They asked me

if the house was open. I told them it was not, and they desired me to

knock the people up. I did so; and then they brought the wounded

gentleman up, and placed him in the house. He groaned very much, and

said, ‘Don’t shake me.’”

Several other witnesses were examined; and the following statement,

signed by the prisoner, was put in and read:—

“The prisoner, Richard William Lambrecht, being cautioned by the

magistrates to be careful of what he said, and to offer nothing to

criminate himself, said, ‘What I state is the whole truth. I was

acquainted with Mr. Clayton. I saw him receive a horse-whipping, which

he did not resent. I mentioned it to Mr. Clayton on Christmas evening,

and after that he sent me a message, to which I returned another by Mr.

Odell. Another person, nearly a fortnight after, took it up, and was my

friend in the business. After that, the meeting took place; and Mr.

Byrne, when on the ground, came up to me, and said, ‘Is it come to

this?’ and I said, that I would make a written apology to no man. After

the business took place, I went up to Mr. Clayton and shook hands with

him, and he said, ‘I forgive you, my dear friend; I forgive you.’ The

message to me by Mr. Odell was from Mr. Clayton; but Mr. Odell advised

Mr. Clayton not to fight, refused to have anything to do with it, and

was not on the ground. I offered an apology through my friend. I said, I

regretted what had taken place; that the words were uttered in a moment

of intemperance, and that I was willing to apologize; which was refused

by the other party. I sent this message through my friend. The answer I

received was, that it must proceed, as nothing would be taken but a

written apology. As far as I know about the business, both our pistols

went off at the same time. It was a chance shot, as it was dark, and we

could not see.”

Several witnesses were then called, who had long known the prisoners,

and described them as persons of a humane and peaceable disposition.

Mr. Justice Bayley summed up, and closed his observations on the

evidence with telling the jury that the question for them to decide was,

by what means did Mr. Clayton come by his death? If they were of opinion

that he came by his death by a bullet from the pistol of Mr. Lambrecht,

and that Mr. Lambrecht met him on the ground with the intention, if the

difference could not be settled, of putting his life against Mr.

Clayton’s, and Mr. Clayton’s against his, he was bound, as a lawyer and

a judge, to tell them, that Mr. Lambrecht was guilty of the crime of

wilful murder, and that they were bound to find him guilty of that crime

under the present indictment.—With respect to the prisoner Cox,

Lambrecht’s second, however desirous he might have been for a

reconciliation, and however he might have expected that an apology would

be accepted, still, if he allowed himself to continue on the ground when

he found that reconciliation was hopeless, and acted on the occasion as

a second, he must be considered as aiding and abetting in that

transaction; which, in the case of Lambrecht, amounted to the crime of

wilful murder.—Then, with respect to the prisoner Bigley, Mr. Clayton’s

second, he acted as a go-between, and no other person was there on the

part of Mr. Clayton. What, then, was the common purpose of the parties

at the time, and was Bigley aiding and abetting? If the common purpose

was, that the life of Lambrecht and Clayton should be respectively put

in hazard, then Bigley was as much aiding and abetting as Cox. The

learned Judge concluded by telling the jury to take the case into their

careful consideration; and if they were satisfied that Mr. Clayton came

to his death by the shot of Lambrecht in the duel, and that Cox and

Bigley were aiding and abetting on that occasion, they must find, or at

least ought to find, a verdict of guilty.

The jury, after deliberating in the box for a few minutes, expressed a

wish to retire. Before they went out, one of them said, they wished to

know whether they might return a verdict of guilty generally, or whether

they must say guilty of murder? Mr. Justice Bayley told them, that if

there had been any circumstances in the case to reduce the crime to

manslaughter, he should have stated them for their consideration; but he

had found none. The juryman who had asked the question said, that the

object of it was, to know whether they might find a verdict of

manslaughter. The jury, after deliberating three hours and a half,

returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN CAPTAIN SMITH AND STANDISH O’GRADY, ESQ.

March 17, 1830.

At the Commission Court, in Dublin, on the 21st of August, Captain Smith

and Captain Markham, of the 32d regiment of Foot, were tried for killing

Standish O’Grady, Esq. in a duel. Mr. North stated the case for the

prosecution. The late Mr. O’Grady, a young gentleman of about

twenty-eight years of age, and a member of the bar, had, on the 17th of

March, ordered his horse, for the purpose of driving out and taking his

morning exercise. He was riding up Nassau Street, towards Merrion

Square, when he met a cabriolet with Captain Smith and Captain Markham

in it. Mr. O’Grady was riding on the left-hand side, which is adjacent

to the wall of the College park. There was a carriage on the other side

of the street, which narrowed the way the cabriolet should pass, and

brought it near the wall, by which Mr. O’Grady was riding. It pressed so

near that side, that, in trying to pass it, he was obliged to put his

horse on the pathway. In the attempt, the horse missed his footing, and

he feared would have fallen and thrown him; and he leaned forward to

right himself in the saddle. He had in his hand a small whip; and, in

pressing forward, it struck the head of the cabriolet. In this

collision, Mr. O’Grady did not say one word to the gentlemen in it. The

horse recovered its footing, and he his seat; and he went on at a gentle

walk. The gentlemen in the cabriolet drew up as suddenly as its rapid

motion would permit; and Captain Smith having jumped out of it, with the

gig-whip in his hand, overtook Mr. O’Grady a little beyond Morrison’s

Hotel. He did not call him; he did not expostulate with him; but he

struck him on the back repeatedly, with great violence,—not once or

twice, but many times. When he turned, he saw Captain Smith running back

to his cabriolet. He asked him, who he was? Captain Smith said, he knew

him well; but, on the question being repeated, he said, “Captain Smith,

of the 32d regiment.” Mr. O’Grady rode to his father’s house, and sought

for a military friend, Lieutenant Macnamara, of the 8th Hussars; who, in

the course of the day, had an interview with Captain Smith, and Captain

Markham, who acted as his friend. The meeting took place at six o’clock

in the morning. It was understood, that no persons were to be on the

ground but the principals and their seconds. Captain Markham acquainted

Mr. O’Grady, that the signal to be given was, “Ready!—fire!” When the

arrangements were completed, the principals came into the field, at a

signal to that effect, and took their places on the ground. The pistols

were placed in their hands, while Captain Markham and Lieutenant

Macnamara stood by as seconds. Captain Markham then gave the first

signal; but, from whatever cause, he did not give it in the terms fixed

on. He said, “Gentlemen, are you ready?” or, “Are you ready, gentlemen?”

Mr. O’Grady conceived the words were to be, “Ready!—fire!” and that this

was a preliminary inquiry. Captain Smith, however, did not labour under

this mistake: he levelled his pistol, and covered Mr. O’Grady for a few

seconds. Mr. O’Grady, perceiving his antagonist prepared, raised his

pistol; but, before he had levelled it. Captain Markham, whose eye was

upon him, gave the signal. Captain Smith fired, and Mr. O’Grady fell. He

lived till about three o’clock on the following day, when he expired.

Evidence was adduced in corroboration of the above statement. The jury

returned a verdict, finding both prisoners guilty of manslaughter; and

they were sentenced to be imprisoned in the gaol of Kilmainham for the

space of twelve months. The announcement of the sentence was received

with cheers from some parts of the court. Captain Smith, who, during the

latter part of the trial, had evinced considerable emotion, as soon as

the sentence was pronounced, clapped his hands to his forehead, and in

an agony exclaimed, “Oh God! my God! take my life! Is it come to this?”

Then, throwing himself into Captain Markham’s arms, he cried, “Oh

Markham! my dear Frederick, have I brought you to this? Oh! I wish to

God they would take my life! Shame and disgrace, and every thing else,

have come upon me!” The unfortunate gentleman then covered his face with

his handkerchief, and burst into tears. Judge Vandeleur added, that, in

passing the sentence, he ought, perhaps, to have said, that the conduct

of the prisoners, when in the field, was such as to leave no stain upon

their character.

BETWEEN DR. SMITH AND DR. JEFFRIES.

August, 1830.

In the August of this year, the following most savage “affair of honour”

took place near Philadelphia. A challenge was sent by a Dr. Smith to a

Dr. Jeffries, and, being accepted, the parties met. The distance fixed

upon was only eight paces; at which they exchanged shots, without either

of them receiving any injury. Some efforts were then made by their

friends to bring about an accommodation, but unavailingly; as Dr.

Jeffries declared that he would not leave the ground until he had lost

his own life or taken that of his antagonist. Pistols were then handed

to them a second time, and at this fire the right arm of Dr. Smith was

broken, which delayed the proceedings for a few moments, until he

recovered from the exhaustion; when he declared, that, as he was

wounded, he was ready to die, and requested the seconds to proceed. The

pistols were then put into their hands a third time, Dr. Smith using his

left hand. At this fire Dr. Jeffries was wounded in the thigh, and his

loss of blood occasioned an exhaustion which again delayed the conflict

for a few minutes. He, however, recovered, and both desired to shorten

the distance. They now stood up for the fourth time, covered with blood,

and at a distance of six feet. They were to fire between the words “one”

and “five,” and the shot proved fatal to both parties. They fell to the

earth. Dr. Smith was dead when he dropped, the ball having penetrated

his heart. Dr. Jeffries was shot through the breast, and survived but

four hours. They fought with perfect coolness. When Dr. Jeffries saw

that his antagonist had fallen, he asked if he was dead; and being

assured that he was, he declared his own willingness to die. Before he

expired, he said he had been a schoolmate with Dr. Smith, and that they

had been on terms of great intimacy and friendship for fifteen years;

and he bore honourable testimony to his character as a man of science

and a gentleman.

BETWEEN GENERAL SEBASTIANI AND GENERAL LAMARQUE.

August 1, 1831.

A hostile meeting took place in the Bois de Boulogne, between General

Sebastiani, minister for foreign affairs, and General Lamarque, arising

out of a speech made by the latter in the Chamber of Deputies, in which

he represented M. Lebeau, Belgian minister for foreign affairs, as the

Sebastiani of Belgium. The seconds present on this occasion, General

Jacqueminot and M. de Rumigny, were chosen by General Sebastiani; whose

adversary expressed himself satisfied with their presence, and declined

appointing any on his own behalf. The affair having been arranged on the

ground without an exchange of shots, a detailed account of the

circumstances attendant upon the intended duel was published in the

journal called the Tribune; the tenor of which betrayed, on the part of

General Sebastiani’s seconds, more anxiety to settle the difference

without fighting, than is usually considered consistent with the honour

of the principal whom they are called upon to represent. A letter was,

in consequence, addressed to the editor of the Tribune by General

Jacqueminot and M. de Rumigny, in which they contradicted many of the

circumstances stated in that journal, and entered into an explanation,

which General Lamarque interpreted as being unfavourable to himself.

Another meeting, in consequence, took place in the Bois de Boulogne;

Admiral de Rigny acting as the second of General Sebastiani, and General

Harispe for General Lamarque. Two pistol-shots having been exchanged

without injury to either party, the seconds interfered, and the affair

was amicably settled.

BETWEEN MAJOR-GENERAL MOORE AND MR. STAPYLTON.

February 13, 1832.

A duel was this day fought upon Wimbledon Common, between Major-General

Lorenzo Moore, C.B., and Miles Stapylton, Esq. In the evening of the

same day, the General was brought to Union Hall police office, on a

charge of wounding Mr. Stapylton; when Mr. David Harris stated, that as

he was proceeding to Godalming on the outside of the stage-coach, about

four o’clock, in passing the road which crosses Wimbledon Common, he

heard the report of a pistol, and on looking towards the spot observed a

gentleman fall. He and Mr. Self alighted, and ran to the place. Seeing

the gentleman lying on the ground, and blood upon the breast part of his

shirt, they went towards the General, who had a pistol in his hand, and

told him that he must consider himself in custody. The General offered

no resistance, and immediately resigned his fire-arms. In the meanwhile,

the seconds and some other persons carried the wounded gentleman off the

field, placed him in a carriage, and drove towards town. The witness and

Mr. Self conducted the General to Kingston, and gave him into the

custody of a constable, who brought him to town. On the following day he

was again brought up, and was much affected at hearing a certificate of

the dangerous condition of Mr. Stapylton read. Bail to any amount was

offered; but Mr. Chambers, the magistrate, said that while the wounded

gentleman remained in a condition between life and death, it was his

duty to retain the General in custody. He was again brought before Mr.

Chambers on the 22nd; who said that he had received a certificate from

Mr. Guthrie, the surgeon, who described Mr. Stapylton as being much

better, and understood it was the decided wish of that gentleman and his

friends that the whole matter should drop, and that no further

proceedings should be instituted against the General. Under these

circumstances, he and his colleague, Mr. Murray, had resolved to admit

him to bail. They then decided, that he should find two securities of a

thousand pounds each, and enter into his own recognizance in the sum of

two thousand pounds, to appear at the next Surrey assizes; or, in the

event of the fatal termination of Mr. Stapylton’s wound, to appear at

the Old Bailey to take his trial. The required securities were

immediately entered into, and the General was discharged.

BETWEEN GENERAL JACQUEMINOT AND M. BELMONTE.

March 23, 1832.

In consequence of some reflections made by the editor of the French

journal, the Tribune, on Marshal Lobau, commandant of the Parisian

National Guard, four officers on the staff of the Marshal paid a visit

to the office of the Tribune, with, to use a homely expression, a very

bullying message. Taken unawares, the principal editor refused to meet a

body of persons; but expressed his readiness to give the Marshal himself

personal satisfaction. The affair got wind; and, in the course of the

day, many young men left their cards at the office of the Tribune,

soliciting to be permitted, as assistant-editors of journals, to take

off the odds; and accordingly the Tribune of March the 21st, intimated

to the Etat-major, publicly in its columns, that sixty-seven editors

were ready to go out with the sixty-seven officers of which the

Etat-major is composed. Saturday, the 23rd, produced the first of the

duels resulting from this challenge _en masse_. The principals in this

affair were General Jacqueminot of the Etat-major, and M. Belmonte, the

editor-in-chief of the Tribune. The former was attended by General

Gourgaud and Colonel Taunton; the latter, by Colonel Bricqueville, a

member of the Chamber of Deputies, and M. Cartel, editor of the

Nationel. After an exchange of shots, the seconds interfered, and that

particular affair was made up.

BETWEEN M. COSTE AND M. BÉNOIT.

September, 1832.

In consequence of a paragraph which appeared in the French journal

called “Le Temps,” reflecting on the manner in which orders had been

distributed among the commissaries of police, a meeting took place in

the Bois de Boulogne, between M. Coste, the editor of that paper, and M.

Bénoit, commissary of police. M. Bénoit was attended by M. Nay, chief

clerk of the private office of the prefecture of police, and M.

Haymonet, another commissary. The seconds to M. Coste were Dr. Pasquier

and M. V. Schoeler, a literary gentleman. The parties were placed at

fifty paces from each other, with an understanding, that they were to

advance to the distance of twenty paces. Both having arrived at this

point, M. Bénoit desired M. Coste to fire first: this, however, he

declined, and the seconds desired that they should fire together, at a

signal. The two shots went off within a second of each other: the ball

of M. Bénoit’s pistol went through the collar of the coat of M. Coste,

while that of the latter entered the right side of his adversary, and

passed through his body, coming out on the left side, about three inches

higher. M. Bénoit was immediately conveyed to the infirmary of the

King’s household, where he shortly after died.

The endeavour, on the part of the Parisians, to establish, at this time,

a summary law of libel, by which the editor who ventured to animadvert

on a particular class of public officers, was subjected to a most awful

species of censorship, gave rise to many animadversions in the English

journals; and amongst them, to the following:—“Truth is said to lie at

the bottom of a well; at Paris they seek it at the bottom of a bullet

wound. The ordeal, in the late case of the ‘Temps,’ however, ended in

favour of the editor: the commissary of police,—one of the first of a

numerous body of challengers for the same offence,—bit the dust, and is

since dead. If editors are to have their errata thus corrected, they

must either be very careful of what they print, or they must cast their

old types into balls. Hitting a mark will be quite as necessary as

pointing a period: reporters and paragraph-mongers must be as often seen

at the shooting-gallery, as in the gallery of the House of Commons. It

will be dangerous to enter a newspaper establishment on the leisure

days; for, in the absence of rumours, the printers will amuse themselves

with reports. The editors and sub-editors will stick up their unsold

numbers for targets; and he who shall hole the stamp-mark will be

considered to have hit the bull’s-eye, and be held to have so far broken

up the taxes upon knowledge. Thus, editors will be as dangerous on days

of ball-practice, as on days of publication; and a man whose character

is shot through and through, if he goes to the office to complain, may

chance to have his thorax perforated as well. Hostilities have, however,

on this side the water, scarcely commenced; and where they have, it must

be said, little resentment has been exhibited on the part of the beaten

journalists. This affair of M. Coste and M. Bénoit demonstrates the

greater freedom of the press in England than in Paris. Had the liberty

of finding fault with the manner in which orders had been distributed

among the commissaries of police been indulged in by an English paper on

English magistrates, the remark would have been thought perfectly

legitimate; and, so far from being fought about, would not have been

even answered, unless by some paper in the opposite interest. This is,

surely, far more rational than Mr. Roe, and Mr. Rawlinson, and Mr.

Chambers, rushing into the offices of ‘The Morning Chronicle’ or ‘The

Examiner,’ cursing the publisher, abusing the clerks, and challenging

the editors to mortal combat. Where would be the use of Mr. Roe evading

his own officers, and skulking to Chalk Farm, some dewy morning, in

order to slaughter Mr. Black, because of the acrimony of his remarks on

a police case? In this matter, at least, we order these things better

than in France.”

BETWEEN SIR JOHN JEFFCOTT AND DR. HENNIS.

May 10, 1833.

On this day a fatal duel took place near Exeter, between Sir John

Jeffcott and Dr. Hennis. The dispute had arisen, in consequence of the

Doctor having been supposed to have uttered words injurious to the

reputation of Sir John, a judge of Sierra Leone. On the 26th of July, at

the assizes at Exeter, he was charged with having unlawfully,

feloniously, and of malice aforethought, inflicted a wound upon Peter

Hennis, M.D., with a leaden bullet, of which wound he afterwards died;

and Charles Melford, Robert Holland, and George Anthony Halstead, were

charged with aiding and assisting him. Sir John Jeffcott had not been

apprehended. The other parties this day appeared in court to take their

trial; and the following is the substance of the evidence brought

forward.

John Corfield Irving.—“I had a conversation with Dr. Hennis, on the 10th

of May, in consequence of which he wrote a declaration. After which, I

saw Sir John Jeffcott, and told him I had come to him from Dr. Hennis;

upon which he asked, if I came as the Doctor’s friend. In consequence of

what he said, I saw Mr. Melford, and I read to him, or showed him, this

paper. I said, I trusted it would convince Sir John that the Doctor had

never made use of the words in the sense imputed to him, and induce him

to retract the expressions he had made use of towards the Doctor in the

morning. Mr. Melford said, the Doctor had admitted the words imputed to

him; upon which Sir John made use of the words ‘calumniating scoundrel.’

I told Mr. Melford I was directed by the Doctor to deny most

unequivocally the use of the words, in the meaning imputed to him; that,

on the contrary, the Doctor had asked a member of a respectable family,

if the reports circulated in Exeter were true. The party said they were

not true, and that Sir John had acted most honourably. Mr. Melford

replied, that the words made use of by Dr. Hennis could not have been

mistaken by Mr. Holland; and he showed me the copy of a letter, written

by Sir John Jeffcott to Dr. Hennis, on the subject. This is the letter:—

“Street’s Clarence Hotel, May 10.

“SIR,

“In a conversation with a gentleman of character and respectability, and

I believe hitherto of unquestionable veracity, I was last night, to my

great astonishment, informed that you had, about three months ago,

stated to my informant, that the reason why a certain affair, in which

the name of a most respectable family is involved, to whom I need not

more particularly allude, was broken off was, that I had given that

family a false statement of my pretensions; that I had, among other

things, asserted I had a vote for the University of Dublin, which, in

your opinion, I had no more than you had; meaning, I presume, that I had

no vote, and that I had stated what was not true, and that you

considered that I was, in fact, a mere adventurer. I can scarcely

imagine that a person holding the station in society that you do, or

that any man who ought, by profession and education, to be a gentleman,

could have gone so gratuitously out of his way to traduce the character

of any individual behind his back; particularly when that individual was

your countryman, to whom to his face you had made professions, if not of

friendship, at least, of cordiality and good-will, and whose only

previous intercourse with you was consulting you professionally in the

first instance, and meeting you afterwards once or twice when you called

professionally at the house of his friends. You will therefore, I feel

satisfied, see the propriety, from regard to your own character, of

coming at once to an explicit understanding upon the subject of this

letter, and stating to me whether you did or did not use the expressions

attributed to you. If you did not, you cannot, I am sure, as a

gentleman, hesitate to disavow them promptly and unequivocally. If, on

the other hand, you are prepared to maintain them, you will see the

propriety of letting me know so without delay; as I am at present alone

in Exeter, and am ordered to embark to-morrow morning on board his

Majesty’s ship Britomart, at Plymouth.

“I have the honour to be, &c.

“J. W. JEFFCOTT.”

“I read this letter, and told Mr. Melford I was not aware it had been

written, and must return to Dr. Hennis to know how he had acted under

it. I communicated to the Doctor what had taken place. I found Captain

Halstead with him. The Doctor told me, the Captain had received a

communication from him prior to his meeting me. I therefore begged to

resign the business into his hands. The Captain undertook the amicable

arrangement of the matter, and with that view instructed me to accompany

him back to Mr. Melford’s; two heads being, he said, better than one. I

did so. The Captain either read or showed Dr. Hennis’s declaration to

Mr. Melford, and said he felt confident Sir John Jeffcott, on being made

acquainted with its contents, would retract the obnoxious expressions he

had made use of. Mr. Melford said, he took the same view of the words as

Sir John did, and that the Doctor had made an admission of them in the

morning. He added, that the business could have been settled at nine

that morning; but he feared it was then too late, as Sir John was to

leave the town at three o’clock for Plymouth, and was perfectly

satisfied with the part he had acted. Captain Halstead said, it could

never be too late to arrange a business of that kind, and requested Mr.

Melford would go to Sir John, and acquaint him with the nature of the

strong declaration Dr. Hennis had signed. He afterwards told me, that

Sir John would neither accept an explanation nor retract the words he

had used. I took no part after.”

William Hucksford, servant to Dr. Eady, said—“I accompanied him in his

gig to Halden: when I arrived, I saw Mr. Holland near the road, and four

gentlemen on the race-course. I saw them walk up to each other, and then

walk away in two parties. I heard the report of a pistol, and, on going

up, I saw Dr. Hennis, who appeared to be much wounded. Sir John Jeffcott

knelt on the ground, and asked Dr. Hennis if he would forgive him. I

could not hear what answer the Doctor gave, but they shook hands; and,

immediately after, the Doctor fell upon the ground.” Mr. Luscombe,

surgeon, said, he saw Dr. Hennis about six in the evening. “He had a

wound in the body below the shoulder blade, caused by a bullet. I

attended him till his death, which took place on the 18th.”

Mr. Justice Patteson then charged the jury. He said that, from the facts

proved, it was either a case of the high offence charged, or of no crime

at all. The offence charged was that of murder; and the prisoners were

charged, not with having inflicted the wound of which Dr. Hennis died,

but with having been present at the time when another person inflicted

that wound, aiding and assisting that other person, who was not now in

this country, and therefore could not be tried. Unless it was done with

malice aforethought, the crime of murder was not committed. Now, malice

aforethought was not that of private, individual ill-will towards the

party; but it was the malice the law presumed, when persons went out,

intending to commit an act which was in itself unlawful. The law was

this,—that if a person was so near as to be able to give assistance in

any way to that which was going on, though even at some distance, for

the purpose of giving such assistance, and went there for that purpose,

then he was considered to be aiding and assisting. If a party killed

another in a deliberate duel, he was guilty of murder. Whenever two

persons, in cool blood, met and fought on a preceding quarrel, and one

was killed, the law said the other was guilty of murder; and he could

not help himself by alleging, that the other struck the first blow, or

that it was his intent only to vindicate his reputation: he had engaged

in an act highly unlawful, and must abide the consequences; and not only

the principal, but all persons aiding and assisting, or knowingly

present at any deliberate duel, would be liable to a charge of murder.

Where two persons went out with deadly weapons, tending to produce

death, it was impossible not to see that they must have contemplated the

possibility that death would ensue. The two principals in this case had

had a personal altercation, but the other gentlemen had not. There had

been messages to and fro, and great attempts to prevent a duel. They

would say whether those attempts, and the ultimate arrangements to meet

at Halden, would or not lead them to believe that it took place in the

heat of blood. He confessed he had extreme difficulty in seeing how they

could arrive at such a conclusion; how it could be said, the duel took

place in the heat of passion: if they believed it did not, then it was a

deliberate duel; and if so, the law pronounced it to be murder. He would

say nothing as to whether duelling ought to be tolerated: it was not

tolerated by the law of England.—After detailing the whole of the

evidence, the learned judge adverted to the high characters the parties

had received; which he said was not inconsistent with that sense of

honour, which induced them to go out and render their assistance to two

persons in a deliberate duel. The question was in their hands, and they

would decide according to their consciences.

The jury remained in consultation for a few minutes, and returned a

verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN M. CHARLES LEON, NATURAL SON OF NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE, AND CAPTAIN

DE HESSE.

August 1833.

In the course of this month, a case came on to be tried at the assizes

of the Seine, in which a charge of murder, committed in a duel, was made

against M. Charles Leon, a natural son of the late Emperor Napoleon. M.

Leon dined, on the 31st of December 1831, with M. de Rosambert, and met

there another guest, Captain de Hesse. After dinner, play was

introduced, and M. Leon was so unfortunate as to lose eighteen thousand

francs. When called on to pay, he contended, that M. de Hesse had

pledged himself to give his antagonist a _revanche_; which was only

consistent with the laws of honour applicable to the game. An angry

discussion arose, and M. de Hesse published some particulars of the

affair, which were considered prejudicial to the character of M. Leon.

The differences between them at last arose to such a height, that a

meeting became inevitable; and, on the 24th of February 1832, the

hostile proceeding took place. The result was, that M. de Hesse was

mortally wounded, and died three days afterwards. On the ground, M. de

Hesse admitted the bravery and strict honour of his antagonist; his wife

was, nevertheless, determined to prosecute. Accordingly, the seconds

were summoned; of whom only General Gourgaud and M. May appeared.

General Gourgaud gave his evidence to the following effect:—“I am not

able to give any details respecting the circumstances which gave rise to

this affair; for I am wholly ignorant of them. My friend M. Monneval,

commissioned by the Emperor Napoleon to superintend the conduct of M.

Leon, was indisposed at the time, and requested me to act for him in

this very serious matter. I undertook the duty with regret; for I was

well aware of the ties which bound M. Leon to the Emperor, and I was

conscious of all that his Majesty had communicated to me on this subject

at St. Helena. It was with me a sacred obligation, imposed by gratitude,

not to abandon him at such a moment.”

After a short deliberation, the jury found M. Leon “Not guilty,” and the

court acquitted him.

BETWEEN THE DUKE DE ROVIGO AND COUNT DE LANGLE.

February 14, 1835.

A meeting with swords took place this day in the Bois de Meudon, between

the Duke de Rovigo, lieutenant of the first regiment of the Chasseurs of

Africa, and the Count de Langle, captain of the National Horse Guards,

in consequence of some offensive expressions uttered by the Duke,

relative to certain recompenses granted to the National Guards. The Duke

de Rovigo received a wound in his chest, which prevented him from

continuing the combat.

BETWEEN MR. ST. JOHN AND COUNT CATRAFFIANA.

April 25, 1835.

In consequence of a dispute at a ball, on the 20th of April, Mr. St.

John and Count Catraffiana left Rome for the Neapolitan territory. On

account of a supposed rudeness on the part of the Count towards Mr. St.

John, the latter had pulled his nose publicly in the ball-room; the

consequence of which proceeding was a formal challenge the next morning

from the Count. The duel was first to have taken place at Rome; but the

police, having got wind of it, had taken measures to prevent it. They

accordingly left Rome on the 24th, and arrived on the following day at

the Valla di Cicerone, near Mola di Gaita. Each of the combatants was

attended by two seconds. They remained five minutes opposite to one

another after the signal was given, each expecting the other to move

forward. Mr. St. John then advanced a few paces, and fired with fatal

precision; his ball entering the chest of his opponent. The Count, after

being wounded, put his hand to his breast, walked forward nine paces,

fired, and dropped down dead. The Count’s ball carried off a part of Mr.

St. John’s ear, and penetrated his hat. The Count was a practised

duellist, having wounded several antagonists on similar occasions.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN WHITE AND COLONEL BELLAMY.

November 21, 1835.

A desperate duel was fought this day, at Washington, between Captain

Everett White, brother of the delegate in Congress, and Colonel Bellamy,

formerly president of the Legislative Council. These gentlemen were

candidates for Jefferson’s county, and Captain White was returned. The

duel, from the mode of conducting it, was evidently intended to have

fatal results. They were stationed sixty yards apart, with four pistols,

to advance and fire. Captain White advanced, and received three shots

without injury, and then fired at the distance of fifteen paces. His

first shot passed through Colonel Bellamy’s arm, the next through his

body, and, in the act of advancing with the other two pistols, he

received a mortal wound from Colonel Bellamy’s fourth pistol.

BETWEEN BRIGADIER-GENERAL EVANS AND CAPTAIN DICKSON.

April 8, 1836.

A meeting took place this day, at Wormwood Scrubs, between

Brigadier-General Evans, of the British Auxiliary Legion, and Captain

Lothian Dickson, of the British army, and late of the Legion. The

misunderstanding arose out of circumstances that had taken place at the

quarters of the Legion in Spain. Brigadier-General Evans, however, had

refused to meet Captain Dickson, in consequence of what he considered to

be conduct, on the part of the latter gentleman, which had forfeited his

claim. The Junior United Service Club at last interfered, and decided

that no stain of that nature rested on Captain Dickson. The meeting, in

consequence, after some negotiation, took place. The following is the

account of General Evans’s second, which is borne out by Mr. Cooke, the

friend of Captain Dickson:—“The meeting took place, and the principals

being placed, General Evans received Captain Dickson’s fire; when, after

an interval of a few seconds. General Evans brought down his pistol and

uncocked it, without having fired. Upon which I addressed myself to Mr.

Cooke, and said, ‘I have now to say, that, in deference to the opinion

of the committee of the Junior United Service Club, I have brought my

friend here; and, having now paid that deference to those gentlemen, I

feel it my duty to withdraw General Evans from the ground.’ Mr. Cooke

then said, ‘I am not satisfied,’ and again made allusion to an apology.

I persisted in withdrawing General Evans, without further explanation;

and, on leaving the ground, he then only informed me of his being

wounded; and, on his return to his hotel, he was attended by Sir Stephen

Hammick, who extracted the ball, and left his patient in as comfortable

a state as, under the circumstances could be expected.”

BETWEEN M. ARMAND CARREL AND M. ÉMILE DE GIRARDIN.

July, 1836.

A fatal duel took place between M. Armand Carrel, editor of the Parisian

journal the Nationel, and M. Émile de Girardin, editor of the Presse.

The Nationel, in a very measured note upon a prosecution instituted by

the Presse against the Bon Sens, expressed an opinion, that M. de

Girardin would have done better to settle his quarrel with the editor of

that feuilleton by written discussion, than by having recourse to the

law. The Presse, in answering this note, introduced, in a manner not the

most proper, the name of M. Carrel; who, although he did not sign the

Nationel as its responsible editor, felt himself called upon to take the

steps which led to such a deplorable result. M. Carrel fired first, and

wounded his adversary in the thigh. M. de Girardin fired in his turn,

and the ball entered the lower part of M. Carrel’s body. He was

immediately conveyed to Mandé, to the house of M. Peyra, an old and

intimate friend; where he died on the following day. When they were

carrying him from the ground, in passing his antagonist, he said to him,

“And are you, M. de Girardin, suffering much?” The latter, replied, “I

wish, sir, you were not more seriously wounded than I am.”

BETWEEN THE HONOURABLE GRANTLEY BERKELEY AND WILLIAM MAGINN, LL.D.

August 4, 1836.

In consequence of an assault committed by the Honourable Grantley

Fitzhardinge Berkeley, M.P. on Mr. James Fraser, the publisher of the

magazine under his name, Dr. William Maginn, the author of the article

which originally gave offence, left his card at Berkeley House. A

hostile message was forthwith sent by the honourable member, and a

meeting was agreed upon for seven o’clock in the evening. Mr. Grantley

Berkeley was attended by Major Fancourt, and Dr. Maginn by Mr. Hugh

Fraser. The parties met in a field near the Edgeware Road, and, after

exchanging three shots without effect, Mr. Hugh Fraser withdrew his

principal; no explanation or apology having been required or tendered.

BETWEEN MR. HARRING AND A POLISH OFFICER.

May 11, 1837.

A duel was this morning fought, in a field adjoining Hampstead Heath,

between Mr. Harro Harring, a native of Denmark, and a Polish officer,

whose name is not known. The principals met on the ground, attended by

seconds; and, having been placed at ten paces’ distance, both discharged

their pistols at the same instant, when Mr. Harring fell to the ground.

He was conveyed to the North London Hospital; and the wound being

pronounced to be dangerous, the victor, after asking and receiving

forgiveness from the wounded man, mounted his horse and rode off to

London Bridge; where he embarked on board a steamboat for Boulogne; the

duel having been expressly fought at the time appointed, to allow the

escape of the survivor to the Continent.

BETWEEN MR. ANDERSON AND MR. JONES.

August 1837.

A sanguinary “affair of honour” took place this month at Brownville, in

the state of Pennsylvania. For some time past a slight misunderstanding

had existed between Mr. Banner Anderson, of Bolivar, and Mr. Jones,

merchant, of Brownville. Near the close of the week, Mr. Anderson came

to Brownville, and, according to custom, placed his name on the hotel

register. Shortly after, he discovered a remark written immediately

under his name, impugning his character, and bearing the signature of R.

H. Jones. He then wrote a reply, attaching thereto his proper signature.

On the following Monday Mr. Jones called at the hotel, and, seeing the

appended remark, became enraged, and declared he would have

satisfaction. He walked to the door of a store into which Mr. Anderson

had just entered, and called to him to come out. Anderson complied with

the request, when Jones demanded of him, whether he had written the

remark or not? Anderson answered in the affirmative; upon which, in an

instant, each resorted to a pistol, standing about four yards apart.

They fired simultaneously. Jones’s ball lodged in the muzzle of his

adversary’s pistol, and the contents of Anderson’s pistol lodged in

Jones’s breast. He expired in three hours. Anderson submitted

immediately to the civil authorities, and was discharged. Upon

examination, the whole was found to have been a misunderstanding; and

that, if the parties had only conversed together on the subject, no

difficulty would have ensued.

BETWEEN MR. CILLEY AND MR. GRAVES.

November 1837.

A fatal duel took place at Washington, between two members of the House

of Representatives, Mr. Cilley of Maine, and Mr. Graves of Kentucky. Mr.

Cilley had spoken disrespectfully of Colonel Webb, editor of the New

York Courier; whereupon Mr. Webb sent him a challenge by Mr. Graves. Mr.

Cilley said he would not fight such a blackguard as Webb, but was ready

to accept a challenge from Mr. Graves. The following is an account of

the arrangements for the meeting, drawn up by Mr. Cilley’s second:—“Mr.

Cilley proposes to meet Mr. Graves, at such place as may be agreed upon

between us, to-morrow at twelve. The weapons to be used on the occasion

shall be rifles; the parties, placed side to side at eighty yards’

distance from each other, to hold the rifles at arm’s-length, downwards;

the rifles to be cocked, and triggers set; the words to be, ‘Gentlemen,

are you ready?’ After which, neither answering ‘No,’ the words shall be

in regular succession, ‘Fire—one, two, three, four.’ Neither party shall

fire before the word ‘fire,’ nor after the word ‘four.’ The position of

the parties, at the ends of the line, to be determined by lot. The

second of the party losing the position, shall have the giving of the

word. The dress to be ordinary winter clothing, and subject to the

examination of both parties. Each party may have on the ground, besides

his second, a surgeon and two other friends. The seconds, for the

execution of their respective trusts, are allowed to have a pair of

pistols each on the ground; but no other person shall have any weapon.

The rifles to be loaded in the presence of the seconds.” Three shots

were exchanged without harm: at the fourth, Mr. Cilley was shot through

the heart. Cilley’s funeral was attended by six hundred persons, in one

hundred and twenty-five carriages. The seconds afterwards published a

statement, declaring that the duel was “regulated by magnanimous

principles, and the laws of humanity.”

BETWEEN SIR JOHN MILLEY DOYLE AND DR. LOVELL.

March 1838.

A hostile meeting took place near Lisbon between Major-General Sir John

Milley Doyle and Dr. Lovell, the Lisbon correspondent of the Morning

Chronicle; the former attended by Mr. Brandt and Captain Doyle, and the

latter by Major Dodwell and Captain Ruxton. The cause of the duel was a

paragraph in the Lisbon correspondence of the Morning Chronicle of the

10th of March, respecting the decision of the commission appointed to

investigate the claims of foreign officers upon those of Sir John Milley

Doyle; who, considering that the passage was of a tendency injurious to

his interests, required that it should be qualified by certain

explanations on the part of Dr. Lovell. Sir John having fired without

effect, and his antagonist’s pistol having missed fire, the seconds of

the latter gentleman interposed; and, having stated it as their opinion

that he ought not to make any further objection to giving Sir John a

declaration, that he had not intended to advance any opinion of his own

in the notice he had taken of the decision pronounced by the commission,

the affair terminated amicably.

BETWEEN MR. PIGOT AND MR. CARROLL.

April 27, 1838.

A duel was this morning fought at Newtown Park, near Dublin, between a

Mr. Pigot and a Mr. Carroll. At the sixth shot Mr. Pigot received his

adversary’s ball in the leg. While the blood was streaming, he called

for another shot; but his request was not complied with. The dispute

arose at a billiard-room, at a late hour of the preceding night, and

they did not return home until they had settled it.

BETWEEN MR. RUSHOUT AND MR. BORTHWICK.

May 8, 1838.

Mr. Rushout having called upon Mr. Borthwick to explain some

observations made by him at a public dinner at Evesham, which Mr.

Borthwick declined to do, a meeting took place between those gentlemen

in the evening at Wormwood Scrubs. After a second discharge of shots,

the seconds interfered; and Mr. Borthwick stated, that he was perfectly

ready to withdraw any observations which reflected on Mr. Rushout’s

character, being convinced that he had made use of them under

misapprehension.

BETWEEN M. CALMEL AND M. LUARD.

May 1838.

A meeting with pistols took place near Caen, in Normandy, between M.

Calmel and M. Luard, both of that town; in which the latter fell, and

died almost immediately. M. Calmel and the four seconds were indicted

for murder, and brought to trial on the 22d, before the Court of Assizes

at Caen. The jury, notwithstanding the repeated reversals of such

decisions by the Court of Cassation, returned a verdict of acquittal

against all the parties.

BETWEEN LORD CASTLEREAGH AND M. GERARD DE MELCY.

June 16, 1838.

The attentions of Lord Castlereagh to Madame Grisi having attracted the

observation of her husband, M. Gerard de Melcy, he took measures to stop

them at the threshold. In consequence of his precautions, a letter,

addressed by Lord Castlereagh to Madame Grisi, came into his hands,

before it could reach the lady for whom it was intended. M. de Melcy

instantly went to the residence of the noble Lord, with the intention of

demanding satisfaction; but, not finding him at home, he repeated his

visit on the following day, with the same result. He thereupon addressed

a note to the noble Lord, informing him that his letter was intercepted,

and calling for the only reparation that it was in the young nobleman’s

power to give. Lord Castlereagh lost not a moment in offering the

required satisfaction, and gave the name of Mr. Bentinck as the

gentleman in whose hands his character would be placed. M. de Melcy

called to his aid his friend M. de Cottreau; who undertook that the

weapons should be pistols, and the distance twelve paces.

These preliminaries being arranged, the meeting was fixed for Saturday

morning, at half-past four. Both the gentlemen were in readiness; but,

previous to that hour, it was arranged between the seconds, that the

parties should not use the pistols they had been accustomed to practise

with, but that two pair should be taken at hazard from a gunsmith’s

shop. This circumstance so delayed the meeting, that it was not till ten

o’clock that the principals were in a condition to take the ground. At

that hour they met at Wormwood Scrubs, one surgeon being in attendance.

They were placed at the distance agreed upon, and instructed that the

words to be given were, “Gentlemen, are you ready? Fire!” accompanied by

the dropping of a handkerchief. Previously to the signal, Lord

Castlereagh caused his second to deliver into the hands of M. Cottreau a

paper signed by him, declaring that Madame Grisi had not, in the

slightest manner, encouraged his attentions, and that he had never

corresponded with her before. The word was given, and the signal

dropped. They fired at the same time. M. de Melcy’s ball passed through

his antagonist’s right arm, near the wrist. His Lordship discharged his

pistol in the air. Mr. Bentinck, on seeing the condition of Lord

Castlereagh, declared that, as his friend was wounded, the affair could

not be carried further.

BETWEEN MR. MIRFIN AND MR. ELIOT.

August 22, 1838.

A duel, arising out of a dispute which took place at the Saloon in

Piccadilly, was this day fought on Wimbledon Common, in a ravine about

two hundred yards from the mill, between Mr. Mirfin, formerly a

linen-draper residing in Tottenham-court Road, and Mr. Eliot. The

parties fired at a distance of twelve paces. At the first shot the ball

of Eliot went through Mirfin’s hat. The seconds immediately interfered;

but the latter objected, and insisted on having a second shot. The

pistols being reloaded, the parties again fired, when Mirfin fell. He

was immediately attended by Mr. Scott, a surgeon. His death was nearly

instantaneous. The body of the deceased was then placed in a cab, and,

at the dusk of the evening, brought to his residence in town. An

inquest, which lasted four days, was held on the body, at the Tankard

Tavern, Brooke Street, Kennington Road, Lambeth, before the coroner, Mr.

Carter, and a jury of fifteen of the principal inhabitants of the

district. The following are the leading points of the evidence that was

adduced.

Thomas Dunn, the owner of the mill on Wimbledon Common.—“The first thing

I saw, when the parties arrived in the ravine, was a carpet-bag, from

which was taken a box containing some pistols. Five persons were

standing together, and another alone on my left, and a second about two

hundred yards more to the left on the hill. While the pistols were

loading, the one on my left, who was the person who shot the deceased,

came up to me and said, ‘Good morning!’ I said, ‘It appears to me those

gentlemen have some difference to decide.’ He answered, ‘Oh! damned

nonsense, it’s only a bet for a hundred pounds.’ I replied, ‘That will

not do for me;’ on which he passed on whistling. In a minute or two he

again passed me, on which I remarked, it was a pity gentlemen could not

settle their differences in a better way; when he said, ‘Oh! damned

nonsense, I am used to it, and am one who is going to fight.’ A

halfpenny or penny-piece was then tossed up, as I suppose, for the

choice of pistols, or the ground. As the man who shot the other was

going to the place, one of the party went up to him and said, ‘You are

all right: you have nothing to fear.’ I saw both parties present their

pistols, and heard two reports. Shortly after, I again heard the pistols

discharged. Directly after, the gentleman who had spoken to me came

towards me, and said, ‘I have done for the ——.’ I at that moment saw the

deceased falling. I went to him and saw him stripped; when I saw a wound

resembling that from a ball. All except one, who was engaged in pinching

up the wound, left the ground. I said to him, ‘I fear he is a dead man.’

The carriages all left, except the hired cab. The deceased was dead when

I left the spot.”

George Clark, the cabman.—“I was on the stand at the Elephant and Castle

on Wednesday last, about a quarter past five in the afternoon, when I

saw two gentlemen in a gig, and one standing on the path. I pulled over,

when the latter gentleman, Mr. Scott, surgeon, of Rockingham Row, got

in. On reaching Wimbledon Common, we saw a carriage drawn up; it had

post-horses: and there was a stanhope as well. The gentleman then got

out of my cab. In a few minutes, I heard the report of fire-arms; on

which, I and the postillion ran towards the spot. When we reached it,

the deceased had fallen, and the parties had all left, except Mr. Scott

and the deceased. The gig came up with a gentleman, who, jumping out,

ran down the hollow. On his return he said, ‘He’s dead!’ and again

jumped into the gig. I seized the horse’s head, and said. ‘You must not

leave him so; what can I do?’ when he said, ‘It’s my horse and gig;’

and, on my trying to prevent him, he struck the horse and forced himself

away. Mr. Scott told me to bring my cab. I said I could not bring it

down the hollow; on which, the body was brought up, and placed in my

cab. Mr. Scott then got in; and I said, ‘Where am I to go to?’ He said,

‘Across the common, to a friend’s house.’ I refused, however, to drive

him, unless the body was taken to the deceased’s residence: when he told

me to drive to Pleasant Place; where, on my arrival, it was taken into

the parlour.”

Mr. Scott, the surgeon.—“After the first fire, the seconds both

interfered, and wished to reconcile the parties. Mr. Mirfin said, he

would receive nothing but a written apology; which Mr. Eliot refused to

give. Mr. Mirfin then insisted upon a second fire. After he had fired,

he walked about six paces towards me, and said, ‘I am wounded!’ I said,

‘Where? I am exceedingly sorry to hear it.’ He then raised his finger to

show me where he was wounded. I then shook my head, and said,

‘Good-b’ye. God bless you!’ and he said, ‘Good-b’ye, old fellow!’ Mr.

Broughton came up, and said, ‘What shall I do?’ I said, ‘Leave as

quickly as possible.’ The other parties quitted the ground, without

rendering any assistance. After they had been gone about five minutes, a

tall gentleman returned, and asked how he was going on? I replied, ‘He

is dying.’ This was one of the parties who had been present. Mr. Mirfin

died ten minutes after he had received the shot. I asked him to wait,

observing, that he could not be in a worse situation than I myself was.

He promised to remain; but quickly ran or walked away towards the mill.

I never saw him afterwards.”

The room was cleared, and, after about fifty minutes’ deliberation, the

foreman announced to the coroner, that they had come to a verdict of

“Wilful murder” against Francis Lionel Eliot, as principal; and John

Young, Henry Webber, Edward Delves Broughton, and two other persons

unknown, as principals in the second degree. Warrants were immediately

made out and issued for the apprehension of the parties.

On the 21st of September, their trial came on at the Central Criminal

Court. Eliot and Broughton did not appear; but Young and Webber took

their places at the bar. Mr. Bodkin said, that in consequence of the

illness of Mr. Clarkson, who was Broughton’s counsel, it had been

thought desirable that he should not surrender. The prisoners having

pleaded “Not guilty,” Mr. Chambers opened the case for the prosecution,

and called the various witnesses. At the close of the case for the

prosecution, Mr. Adolphus addressed the jury in behalf of Webber, and

Mr. Phillips in behalf of Young. They both maintained, that there was

not a tittle of evidence to show that either of them had any

participation in the unfortunate occurrence. Several witnesses spoke to

their character; which was described as being of the most humane

description.

Mr. Justice Vaughan then charged the jury. He said, that the case, in

his own opinion, presented no point of difficulty. The question for them

to determine was, whether the prisoners at the bar had gone down for the

purpose of aiding and encouraging Mr. Eliot. If they entertained any

doubt upon that point, they were bound to give them the benefit of that

doubt. There were, undoubtedly, he observed, some peculiarities in the

present case, which did not belong to any other case of duelling with

which he was acquainted; and that peculiarity was, the fact of so many

persons having been mixed up with the transaction. With regard to the

manner in which it was conducted, it did not appear that any unfair

advantage had been taken by either party. On the contrary, as far as he

knew anything of such matters, the affair appeared to have been managed

with a strict regard to the practice usually followed on similar

occasions.

The jury, after retiring about twenty minutes, brought in a verdict of

“Guilty.” The foreman then said, that he had been desired by his brother

jurors to express the horror they felt at the conduct of Mr. Scott; and

to say, that, in their opinion, he ought to have been placed at the bar

along with the prisoners. Mr. Justice Vaughan said, he quite agreed with

the jury as regarded Mr. Scott. Mr. Chambers said, he was instructed by

the brother of the deceased, who had felt it his duty to institute this

prosecution, to recommend the prisoners to mercy, on account of the

excellent character they had received. Mr. Justice Vaughan said, the

recommendation should be attended to; but for the present the Court

would order, that sentence of death should be recorded against the

prisoners, and they would from that understand that their lives would be

spared. The sentence of death was afterwards commuted to twelve months’

imprisonment in Guildford gaol; the last month to be passed in solitary

confinement. Eliot and Broughton had escaped abroad. The parties

appealing to this barbarous code of refined honour could, apparently,

claim only a very doubtful gentility. Eliot was the nephew of an

innkeeper at Taunton, and recently an officer in the British Auxiliary

Legion in Spain; Mirfin was the son of a mercer at Doncaster, and had

kept a linen-draper’s shop in Tottenham-court Road; and Young was the

son of a brick-maker at Haddenham, near Aylesbury. The disgusting

exhibition at Wimbledon in this case is believed to have done much to

bring the practice of duelling into ridicule and detestation.

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. GRATTAN.

January 13, 1839.

In consequence of some expressions which were made use of by the Marquis

of Londonderry in the House of Lords, in reference to a speech reported

to have been made by Mr. Henry Grattan at a public meeting in Dublin,

Mr. Grattan addressed a letter of inquiry to the Marquis, to which the

following answer was returned:—

“Holdernesse House, June 12.

“Lord Londonderry presents his compliments to Mr. Henry Grattan. Lord

Londonderry read, in his place in the House of Lords, an extract from

the reports of the newspapers of a speech of Mr. O’Connell’s, stated to

have been made at a public meeting in Dublin, to address the Queen; in

which accusations were made against that party to which Lord Londonderry

is proud to belong. The paragraph Lord L. cited is as follows:—‘Mr.

Grattan had said, that her Majesty’s life would not be safe if the

Tories came into power; and he (Mr. O’Connell) declared solemnly he was

convinced she would not live six months, if that event took place.’ Lord

Londonderry at once admits, if these sentiments are accurately reported,

accusing the Tory party of the intention of murdering the Queen, he

considers them as base and infamous. It was to such accusations Lord

Londonderry’s epithets applied.”

In a second letter, Mr. Grattan begged to say, that he was not

accountable for any opinion or expression in Mr. O’Connell’s speeches.

As he had not alluded, in any speech of his, in any way to Lord

Londonderry, he requested his lordship would distinctly say, whether he

intended that the words ‘base’ and ‘infamous’ should be applied to him?

In answer to this letter. Lord Londonderry observed, that, unwilling as

he should be to fix upon any individual the responsibility of having

uttered such sentiments as those reported in the public accounts of the

meeting to which he alluded, he must adhere to the opinion he had

already expressed, as applying to any individual who was prepared to

avow such language. The epithets complained of were, he said, applied,

not to individuals, but to injurious accusations reported to have been

publicly uttered against a political body; and since there was no

disavowal, on Mr. Henry Grattan’s part, of the language and sentiments

reported to have been used, Lord Londonderry regretted he could not

recede from the opinions he had already expressed.

In consequence of this correspondence, a meeting was arranged, which

took place this day, at three o’clock, on Wimbledon Common. Upon the

signal being given, Lord Londonderry received Mr. Grattan’s fire, and

fired in the air. Mr. Bodkin, on the part of Mr. Grattan, then expressed

himself perfectly satisfied, and the affair terminated.

BETWEEN LORD POWERSCOURT AND MR. ROEBUCK.

February 28, 1839.

A hostile meeting took place this day at Coombe Wood, between Lord

Powerscourt and Mr. Roebuck; the former attended by the Honourable H.

Fitzroy, and the latter by Mr. Trelawney. On the ground endeavours were

made in vain to prevent proceeding to extremities; Lord Powerscourt’s

second insisting on Mr. Roebuck’s retracting, or apologising for,

certain words delivered in a speech at Bath. Mr. Roebuck received his

adversary’s fire, discharged his pistol in the air, and, advancing to

Lord Powerscourt, said, “Now, my lord, I am ready to make any apology

your lordship may suggest; for certainly, in my speech at Bath, I did

not mean to imply anything personally offensive.” With this declaration

all parties being satisfied, the affair terminated.

BETWEEN LORD GEORGE LOFTUS AND LORD HARLEY.

December 10, 1839.

A duel was this day fought near Boulogne, between Lord George Loftus and

Lord Harley. Shots were exchanged without effect; and the parties

returned to Dover on the evening of the same day. The affair originated

in certain expressions used by Lord George Loftus towards Lord Harley,

on occasion of Lord Harley’s presenting himself to the notice of Lord

George, and claiming an acquaintance, of which Lord George had no

recollection whatever. Lord Harley stated, that his introduction to Lord

George had been at the instance of his brother, Lord Loftus; and, on the

faith of this statement, Lord George’s second retracted, in his name,

the expressions that gave the offence.

BETWEEN LORD WILLIAM PAGET AND MR. FISKE.

December 20, 1839.

A meeting took place on Wimbledon Common between Lord William Paget and

Mr. Thomas Fiske. The former was attended by Captain Baillie, of the

Lancers; and the latter by Mr. Nightingale. Mr. Fiske received his

lordship’s fire, and fired in the air; when the seconds interfered. It

appears that Lord William had called upon Mr. Fiske to deny that he had

ever lent money to his lordship, as had been stated in a morning paper;

which request was refused to be complied with, on the ground of its

being accompanied by a threat; but, after receiving his lordship’s fire,

he had no hesitation in declaring, in the presence of Captain Baillie

and Mr. Nightingale, that he never had lent any money to his lordship.

BETWEEN MR. WYNN AND MR. BROWN, IN A STAGE-COACH.

May 17, 1840.

The following is from a New York paper:—On the 17th of May, two persons,

one named Robert Wynn, and the other Joseph D. Brown, quarreled in a

stage-coach between Peru and Chicago, Illinois. Both drew their pistols,

fired, and killed each other. One was shot in the head; the other in the

heart. They were the only passengers.

BETWEEN M. THROUET AND M. PAULIN PRUÉ.

June, 1840.

The following account of a frightful duel fought near New Orleans, is

from the Courier de la Louisiane:—A meeting, as atrocious in the mode of

conducting it, as it was disastrous in its result, has just taken place

between M. Hippolyte Throuet and M. Paulin Prué, both Frenchmen by

birth, and long resident in this city. It originated in a bitterly

contested law-suit, and took place in the following manner. The

principals were placed at five paces distant from each other, back to

back, with a pistol in each hand. At a signal agreed upon, they were to

turn round and fire. At the first discharge they fired together, but

without effect. Prué then took his second pistol into his right hand;

but so precipitately, that it was discharged in the air. Seeing himself

thus exposed, without any means of defence, to his adversary’s fire, he

presented his bosom to him, and said, “Fire!” Several of the bystanders,

of whom there were a great number, trembling for the fate which awaited

the disarmed man, cried out from their places, “Don’t fire!” but the

seconds interposed, and, demanding who dared to interfere in a matter of

the sort, invited Throuet to discharge his pistol against his opponent.

Throuet needed not the invitation; but, having kept both Prué and the

bystanders for a considerable time in a state of the most painful

suspense, still holding Prué covered with his pistol, and grinning

ferociously, fired at last, and, the ball passing through Prué’s body,

he died instantaneously.

BETWEEN MR. ANTONIO GARBONIA AND MR. KECHOFF.

July 4, 1840.

A meeting took place in one of the Kilburn fields, adjoining the New

North-road, St. John’s Wood, between Mr. Antonio Garbonia and Mr.

Nicholas Kechoff. On the first fire Mr. Garbonia received his

antagonist’s ball in his left groin, and fell. Mr. Kechoff advanced to

the wounded man, shook hands with him, and immediately quitted the

ground with his friends. The cause of the meeting arose from disputed

betting at a billiard-table.

BETWEEN THE EARL OF CARDIGAN AND CAPTAIN HARVEY GARNETT PHIPPS TUCKETT.

September 12, 1840.

In consequence of the Earl of Cardigan having ascertained, that certain

letters which had recently been published in the Morning Chronicle,

reflecting, as his lordship considered, on his character as an officer

and a gentleman, were written by Lieutenant Tuckett, late of the 11th

regiment of Dragoons, of which his lordship is Lieutenant-Colonel, the

noble Lord sent him, through Captain Douglas, a challenge. This was

accepted, and Captain Wainwright, of the Half-pay, was selected by him

to arrange the preliminaries. An apology was demanded by the noble Earl;

to which the reply was, that if he would deny the allegations contained

in the letters referred to, it should be given. Lord Cardigan declared

that certain portions were true; but that the greater part were

calumnies. On this the apology was refused, and a meeting was the

consequence.

It took place on the afternoon of Saturday, the 12th of September, on

Wimbledon Common. The first shot was ineffectual on both sides: on the

second, Mr. Tuckett received his adversary’s ball in the back part of

the lower ribs, which traversed round to the spine. As Lord Cardigan and

his second were moving off after the duel, they were taken into custody,

but liberated on bail being given to the police for their appearance

before the magistrates at Wandsworth on Monday: when Sir James Anderson

deposed, that, after the removal of Mr. Tuckett to his house, he made an

examination, and found that a pistol bullet had entered on the upper

part of his right hip-bone, slightly shattering it, had passed

transversely, and come out over the spine of the back-bone. He said he

had visited the patient again on Sunday, and saw no symptoms of present

danger. The magistrates decided, that, as the case was one of a serious

nature, they could not be contented with ordinary recognizances, but

should order the Earl of Cardigan to enter into his own recognizance in

the sum of a thousand pounds, and Captain Douglas in the sum of five

hundred, to ensure their reappearance before that bench on Monday, the

28th.

The following statement of this affair was published by Lord

Cardigan:—“Lord Cardigan having been informed, upon good authority, that

the editor of the Morning Chronicle, upon application being made to him

for the name of the writer of a letter dated the 3rd of September 1840,

signed ‘An Old Soldier,’ which appeared in that paper of the 4th of

September, had stated it to come from Mr. Harvey Tuckett, Captain

Douglas, at the request of Lord Cardigan, waited upon Mr. Tuckett, on

the 11th instant, to demand satisfaction. Mr. Tuckett acknowledged

himself the author, and requested time to go into the country, to

consult Captain Wainwright as his friend. On Saturday, the 12th instant,

Captain Douglas met Captain Wainwright, when the latter solicited in

writing the grounds upon which Lord Cardigan demanded satisfaction of

his friend Mr. Tuckett. Captain Douglas delivered, about half-past two,

P.M., the following statement, viz.—

“‘Lord Cardigan yesterday authorised Captain Douglas to require of Mr.

Tuckett to afford him satisfaction, in consequence of a letter, of which

Mr. Tuckett has avowed himself the author, and which appeared in the

Morning Chronicle of the 4th instant, signed ‘An Old Soldier;’ many

parts of which contained matter entirely false, and the whole of which

was slanderous, insulting, and calumnious.

“‘CARDIGAN.’”

“London, September 12”

September 28.

Lord Cardigan, his second, and the second of Lieutenant Tuckett, were

brought before the bench of magistrates at Wandsworth, and were all

committed to take their trial at the ensuing sessions of the Central

Criminal Court. The charge, as against the noble Lord, was for “shooting

with a pistol at Lieutenant Harvey Tuckett, with intent to murder or do

him some bodily harm;” and, as against Captain Douglas and Captain

Wainwright, for aiding and abetting, in the character of seconds. Lord

Cardigan was admitted to bail on his own recognizance of 2000_l._, and

two sureties of 1000_l._ each; and the two other prisoners were required

severally to give bail in the sum of 500_l._, and two sureties in

250_l._ each. The parties were then bound over to appear and prosecute

the prisoners at the ensuing sessions.

October 14.

Lieutenant Tuckett being sufficiently recovered to appear before the

magistrates of the Wandsworth Court, a special session was this day

held, for the purpose of entering into his examination, on the charge of

shooting at the Earl of Cardigan, with intent to murder him. The former

evidence having been read over, he was fully committed to take his trial

upon the charge of felony, and ordered to enter into his own

recognizance in the sum of 1000_l_., and two sureties in 500_l_. each.

October 21.

At the session of the Central Criminal Court, Mr. Adolphus, in behalf of

the Earl of Cardigan, this day begged leave to ask the judges on the

bench a question, before their lordships proceeded to the business of

the day. He found, he said, that on the list of causes to be tried,

there appeared against the seventh, the name of James Thomas Brudenell,

Earl of Cardigan. Now, Lord Cardigan, being a peer of the realm, could

not be tried in that court. He therefore submitted, that the name of the

noble Earl should be taken from the list. Mr. Justice Bosanquet and Mr.

Justice Erskine agreed, that the course would be to remove the

indictment, by a writ of certiorari, into the Court of the Lord High

Steward, and that it would be very inconvenient to try the case of

Captain Douglas before that of Lord Cardigan. It was finally arranged,

that the recognizances of all the parties should be respited until the

next session.

February 16.

TRIAL OF THE EARL OF CARDIGAN, BEFORE THE HOUSE

OF LORDS, IN FULL PARLIAMENT, FOR FELONY.

A little before eleven o’clock. Lord Denman, in the absence of the Lord

Chancellor, on account of indisposition, entered the House of Lords in

his robes, preceded by the Sergeant with the mace, Black Rod carrying

the Lord High Steward’s staff, and Garter with the sceptre, and took his

seat on the woolsack as Lord Speaker. After prayers the roll of peers

was called over, beginning with the junior Baron; after which, the Clerk

of the Crown in Chancery delivered the commission to the Lord Speaker,

who gave it the Deputy Clerk of the Crown in the Queen’s Bench to read;

which he did, the peers standing. The commission authorised their

lordships to proceed with the trial of James Thomas Earl of Cardigan, on

an indictment found against him for felony, which had been removed

before them by certiorari, and appointed Lord Denman Lord High Steward.

After the writ of certiorari and the record of the indictment had been

read, proclamation was made for the Yeoman Usher to bring the Earl of

Cardigan to the bar. On approaching it, he made three reverences, and

knelt till directed by the Lord High Steward to rise. He then made three

reverences, one to the Lord High Steward, and one to the peers on each

side: after which, he was conducted to the stool provided for him within

the bar, near to his counsel. The Lord High Steward informed him, that

he was charged with the offence of firing with a loaded pistol at Harvey

Garnett Phipps Tuckett, with intent to murder him; in a second count

with firing with intent to maim and disable him; and in a third count

with firing with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Being then

arraigned by the Deputy Clerk of the Crown, and asked whether he was

guilty of the said felony, and how he would be tried, the Earl answered,

“By my Peers.” The Attorney-General and Mr. Waddington appeared as

counsel for the prosecution; and Sir William Follett, Mr. sergeant

Wrangham, and Mr. Adolphus, for the Earl of Cardigan. Mr. Waddington

having opened the indictment.

The Attorney-General then addressed their lordships as follows:—“I have

the honour to attend your lordships on this occasion as Attorney-General

for her Majesty, to lay before you the circumstances of the case upon

which you will be called to pronounce judgment, without any object or

wish on my part, except that I may humbly assist your lordships in

coming to a right conclusion upon it, according to its merits. An

indictment has been found against a peer of the realm by a grand jury of

the country, charging him with a felony, the punishment of which is

transportation or imprisonment. That indictment has been removed before

your lordships, at the request of the noble prisoner; and, I must say,

most properly removed; for an inferior court had no jurisdiction to try

him. The charge is, upon the face of it, of a most serious character,

and it would not have been satisfactory if it had gone off without any

inquiry. The policeman, however, who was bound over to prosecute,

fulfilled his recognizances by appearing at the Central Criminal Court,

and preferring the indictment.—It is possible, my Lords, that in the

course of this trial, questions of great magnitude on the construction

of acts of parliament, or respecting the privileges of the peerage, may

arise, which it is of great importance to this House, to the Crown, and

to the community, should be deliberately discussed. According to all the

precedents that can be found, whenever a peer has been tried in

parliament, the prosecution has been conducted by the law-officers of

the Crown. Fortunately, we have no living memory on this subject. It is

now sixty-four years since any proceeding of this sort has taken place;

and I am rejoiced to think, that on the present occasion the charge

against the noble prisoner at the bar does not imply any degree of moral

turpitude, and that, if he should be found guilty, his conviction will

reflect no discredit on the illustrious order to which he belongs. At

the same time, my Lords, it clearly appears to me, that he has been

guilty of infringing the statute law of the realm, which this and all

other courts of justice are bound to respect and enforce. Your lordships

are not sitting as a court of honour, or as a branch of the legislature:

your lordships are sitting here as a court bound by the rules of law,

and under a sanction as sacred as that of an oath.