between two foreign adventurers, at Bath, named Count Rice and the
Vicomte du Barri. Some dispute arose relative to a gambling transaction,
in the course of which Du Barri contradicted an assertion of the other,
by saying, "That is not true!" Count Rice immediately asked him if he
knew the very disagreeable meaning of the words he had employed. Du
Barri said he was perfectly well aware of their meaning, and that Rice
might interpret them just as he pleased. A challenge was immediately
given and accepted. Seconds were sent for, who, arriving with but little
delay, the whole party, though it was not long after midnight, proceeded
to a place called Claverton Down, where they remained with a surgeon
until daylight. They then prepared for the encounter, each being armed
with two pistols and a sword. The ground having been marked out by the
seconds, Du Barri fired first, and wounded his opponent in the thigh.
Count Rice then levelled his pistol, and shot Du Barri mortally in the
breast. So angry were the combatants, that they refused to desist; both
stepped back a few paces, and then rushing forward, discharged their
second pistols at each other. Neither shot took effect, and both
throwing away their pistols, prepared to finish the sanguinary struggle
by the sword. They took their places, and were advancing towards each
other, when the Vicomte du Barri suddenly staggered, grew pale, and,
falling to the ground, exclaimed, "Je vous demande ma vie." His opponent
had but just time to answer, that he granted it, when the unfortunate
Du Barri turned upon the grass, and expired with a heavy groan. The
survivor of this savage conflict was then removed to his lodgings, where
he lay for some weeks in a dangerous state. The coroner's jury, in the
mean while, sat upon the body of Du Barri, and disgraced themselves by
returning a verdict of manslaughter only. Count Rice, upon his recovery,
was indicted for the murder notwithstanding this verdict. On his trial
he entered into a long defence of his conduct, pleading the fairness
of the duel, and its unpremeditated nature; and, at the same time,
expressing his deep regret for the unfortunate death of Du Barri,
with whom for many years he had been bound in ties of the strictest
friendship. These considerations appear to have weighed with the jury,
and this fierce duellist was again found guilty of manslaughter only,
and escaped with a merely nominal punishment.
A duel, less remarkable from its circumstances, but more so from the
rank of the parties, took place in 1789. The combatants on this occasion
were the Duke of York and Colonel Lenox, the nephew and heir of the Duke
of Richmond. The cause of offence was given by the Duke of York, who had
said, in presence of several officers of the Guards, that words had been
used to Colonel Lenox at Daubigny's to which no gentleman ought to have
submitted. Colonel Lenox went up to the Duke on parade, and asked
him publicly whether he had made such an assertion. The Duke of York,
without answering his question, coldly ordered him to his post. When
parade was over, he took an opportunity of saying publicly in the
orderly room before Colonel Lenox, that he desired no protection from
his rank as a prince and his station as commanding officer; adding
that, when he was off duty, he wore a plain brown coat like a private
gentleman, and was ready as such to give satisfaction. Colonel Lenox
desired nothing better than satisfaction; that is to say, to run the
chance of shooting the Duke through the body, or being himself shot.
He accordingly challenged his Royal Highness, and they met on Wimbledon
Common. Colonel Lenox fired first, and the ball whizzed past the head
of his opponent, so near to it as to graze his projecting curl. The
Duke refused to return the fire, and the seconds interfering, the affair
terminated.
Colonel Lenox was very shortly afterwards engaged in another duel
arising out of this. A Mr. Swift wrote a pamphlet in reference to the
dispute between him and the Duke of York, at some expressions in which
he took so much offence, as to imagine that nothing but a shot at the
writer could atone for them. They met on the Uxbridge Road, but no
damage was done to either party.
The Irish were for a long time renowned for their love of duelling. The
slightest offence which it is possible to imagine that one man could
offer to another, was sufficient to provoke a challenge. Sir Jonah
Barrington relates, in his Memoirs, that, previous to the Union, during
the time of a disputed election in Dublin, it was no unusual thing for
three-and-twenty duels to be fought in a day. Even in times of less
excitement, they were so common as to be deemed unworthy of note by the
regular chroniclers of events, except in cases where one or both of the
combatants were killed.
In those days, in Ireland, it was not only the man of the military, but
of every profession, who had to work his way to eminence with the sword
or the pistol. Each political party had its regular corps of bullies, or
fire-eaters, as they were called, who qualified themselves for being the
pests of society by spending all their spare time in firing at targets.
They boasted that they could hit an opponent in any part of his body
they pleased, and made up their minds before the encounter began whether
they should kill him, disable, or disfigure him for life--lay him on a
bed of suffering for a twelve-month, or merely graze a limb.
The evil had reached an alarming height, when, in the year 1808, an
opportunity was afforded to King George III of showing in a striking
manner his detestation of the practice, and of setting an example to
the Irish that such murders were not to be committed with impunity. A
dispute arose, in the month of June 1807, between Major Campbell and
Captain Boyd, officers of the 21st regiment, stationed in Ireland, about
the proper manner of giving the word of command on parade. Hot words
ensued on this slight occasion, and the result was a challenge from
Campbell to Boyd. They retired into the mess-room shortly afterwards,
and each stationed himself at a corner, the distance obliquely being but
seven paces. Here, without friends or seconds being present, they fired
at each other, and Captain Boyd fell mortally wounded between the fourth
and fifth ribs. A surgeon who came in shortly, found him sitting in a
chair, vomiting and suffering great agony. He was led into another room,
Major Campbell following, in great distress and perturbation of mind.
Boyd survived but eighteen hours; and just before his death, said, in
reply to a question from his opponent, that the duel was not fair, and
added, "You hurried me, Campbell--you're a bad man."----"Good God!"
replied Campbell, "will you mention before these gentlemen, was not
everything fair? Did you not say that you were ready?" Boyd answered
faintly, "Oh, no! you know I wanted you to wait and have friends." On
being again asked whether all was fair, the dying man faintly murmured
"Yes:" but in a minute after, he said, "You're a bad man!" Campbell
was now in great agitation, and wringing his hands convulsively, he
exclaimed, "Oh, Boyd! you are the happiest man of the two! Do you
forgive me?" Boyd replied, "I forgive you--I feel for you, as I know you
do for me." He shortly afterwards expired, and Major Campbell made his
escape from Ireland, and lived for some months with his family under
an assumed name, in the neighbourhood of Chelsea. He was, however,
apprehended, and brought to trial at Armagh, in August 1808. He said
while in prison, that, if found guilty of murder, he should suffer as an
example to duellists in Ireland; but he endeavoured to buoy himself up,
with the hope that the jury would only convict him of manslaughter.
It was proved in evidence upon the trial, that the duel was not fought
immediately after the offence was given, but that Major Campbell went
home and drank tea with his family, before he sought Boyd for the fatal
encounter. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against him,
but recommended him to mercy on the ground that the duel had been a fair
one. He was condemned to die on the Monday following, but was afterwards
respited for a few days longer. In the mean time the greatest exertions
were made in his behalf. His unfortunate wife went upon her knees before
the Prince of Wales, to move him to use his influence with the King, in
favour of her unhappy husband. Everything a fond wife and a courageous
woman could do, she tried, to gain the royal clemency; but George III
was inflexible, in consequence of the representations of the Irish
Viceroy that an example was necessary. The law was therefore allowed
to take its course, and the victim of a false spirit of honour died the
death of a felon.
The most inveterate duellists of the present day are the students in the
Universities of Germany. They fight on the most frivolous pretences,
and settle with swords and pistols the schoolboy disputes which in other
countries are arranged by the more harmless medium of the fisticuffs. It
was at one time the custom among these savage youths to prefer the sword
combat, for the facility it gave them of cutting off the noses of their
opponents. To disfigure them in this manner was an object of ambition,
and the German duellists reckoned the number of these disgusting
trophies which they had borne away, with as much satisfaction as a
successful general the provinces he had reduced or the cities he had
taken.
But it would be wearisome to enter into the minute detail of all the
duels of modern times. If an examination were made into the general
causes which produced them, it would be found that in every case
they had been either of the most trivial or the most unworthy nature.
Parliamentary duels were at one time very common, and amongst the
names of those who have soiled a great reputation by conforming to the
practice, may be mentioned those of Warren Hastings, Sir Philip Francis,
Wilkes, Pitt, Fox, Grattan, Curran, Tierney, and Canning. So difficult
is it even for the superior mind to free itself from the trammels with
which foolish opinion has enswathed it--not one of these celebrated
persons who did not in his secret soul condemn the folly to which he
lent himself. The bonds of reason, though iron-strong, are easily burst
through; but those of folly, though lithe and frail as the rushes by a
stream, defy the stoutest heart to snap them asunder. Colonel Thomas,
an officer of the Guards, who was killed in a duel, added the following
clause to his will the night before he died:--"In the first place, I
commit my soul to Almighty God, in hope of his mercy and pardon for the
irreligious step I now (in compliance with the unwarrantable customs of
this wicked world) put myself under the necessity of taking." How many
have been in the same state of mind as this wise, foolish man! He knew
his error, and abhorred it, but could not resist it, for fear of the
opinion of the prejudiced and unthinking. No other could have blamed him
for refusing to fight a duel.
The list of duels that have sprung from the most degrading causes might
be stretched out to an almost indefinite extent. Sterne's father
fought a duel about a goose; and the great Raleigh about a tavern
bill. [Raleigh, at one period of his life, appeared to be an inveterate
duellist, and it was said of him that he had been engaged in more
encounters of the kind than any man of note among his contemporaries.
More than one fellow-creature he had deprived of life; but he lived
long enough to be convinced of the sinfulness of his conduct, and made
a solemn vow never to fight another duel. The following anecdote of his
forbearance is well known, but it will bear repetition:--
A dispute arose in a coffee-house between him and a young man on some
trivial point, and the latter, losing his temper, impertinently spat in
the face of the veteran. Sir Walter, instead of running him through
the body, as many would have done, or challenging him to mortal combat,
coolly took out his handkerchief, wiped his face, and said, "Young man,
if I could as easily wipe from my conscience the stain of killing you,
as I can this spittle from my face, you should not live another minute."
The young man immediately begged his pardon.] Scores of duels (many of
them fatal) have been fought from disputes at cards, or a place at a
theatre, while hundreds of challenges, given and accepted over-night, in
a fit of drunkenness, have been fought out the next morning to the death
of one or both of the antagonists.
Two of the most notorious duels of modern times had their origin in
causes no more worthy than the quarrel of a dog and the favour of a
prostitute: that between Macnamara and Montgomery arising from the
former; and that between Best and Lord Camelford, from the latter. The
dog of Montgomery attacked a dog belonging to Macnamara, and each master
interfering in behalf of his own animal, high words ensued. The result
was the giving and accepting a challenge to mortal combat. The parties
met on the following day, when Montgomery was shot dead, and his
antagonist severely wounded. This affair created a great sensation at
the time, and Heaviside, the surgeon who attended at the fatal field to
render his assistance, if necessary, was arrested as an accessory to the
murder, and committed to Newgate.
In the duel between Best and Lord Camelford, two pistols were used
which were considered to be the best in England. One of them was thought
slightly superior to the other, and it was agreed that the belligerents
should toss up a piece of money to decide the choice of weapons. Best
gained it, and, at the first discharge, Lord Camelford fell, mortally
wounded. But little sympathy was expressed for his fate; he was a
confirmed duellist, had been engaged in many meetings of the kind, and
the blood of more than one fellow-creature lay at his door. As he had
sowed, so did he reap; and the violent man met an appropriate death.
It now only remains to notice the means that have been taken to stay the
prevalence of this madness of false honour in the various countries
of the civilized world. The efforts of the governments of France and
England have already been mentioned, and their want of success is
but too well known. The same efforts have been attended with the same
results elsewhere. In despotic countries, where the will of the monarch
has been strongly expressed and vigorously supported, a diminution of
the evil has for a while resulted, but only to be increased again, when
death relaxed the iron grasp, and a successor appeared of less decided
opinions upon the subject. This was the case in Prussia under the great
Frederick, of whose aversion to duelling a popular anecdote is recorded.
It is stated of him that he permitted duelling in his army, but only
upon the condition that the combatants should fight in presence of a
whole battalion of infantry, drawn up on purpose, to see fair play. The
latter received strict orders, when one of the belligerents fell, to
shoot the other immediately. It is added, that the known determination
of the King effectually put a stop to the practice.
The Emperor Joseph II of Austria was as firm as Frederick, although the
measures he adopted were not so singular. The following letter explains
his views on the subject:--
"To GENERAL * * * * *
"MY GENERAL,
"You will immediately arrest the Count of K. and Captain W. The Count is
young, passionate, and influenced by wrong notions of birth and a false
spirit of honour. Captain W. is an old soldier, who will adjust every
dispute with the sword and pistol, and who has received the challenge of
the young Count with unbecoming warmth.
"I will suffer no duelling in my army. I despise the principles of
those who attempt to justify the practice, and who would run each other
through the body in cold blood.
"When I have officers who bravely expose themselves to every danger
in facing the enemy--who at all times exhibit courage, valour, and
resolution in attack and defence, I esteem them highly. The coolness
with which they meet death on such occasions is serviceable to their
country, and at the same time redounds to their own honour; but should
there be men amongst them who are ready to sacrifice everything to their
vengeance and hatred, I despise them. I consider such a man as no better
than a Roman gladiator.
"Order a court-martial to try the two officers. Investigate the subject
of their dispute with that impartiality which I demand from every judge;
and he that is guilty, let him be a sacrifice to his fate and the laws.
"Such a barbarous custom, which suits the age of the Tamerlanes and
Bajazets, and which has often had such melancholy effects on single
families, I will have suppressed and punished, even if it should deprive
me of one half of my officers. There are still men who know how to unite
the character of a hero with that of a good subject; and he only can be
so who respects the laws.
"JOSEPH."
"August 1771."
[Vide the Letters of Joseph II to distinguished Princes and Statesmen,
published for the first time in England in "The Pamphleteer" for 1821.
They were originally published in Germany a few years previously, and
throw a great light upon the character of that monarch and the events of
his reign.]
In the United States of America the code varies considerably. In one or
two of the still wild and simple States of the Far West, where no duel
has yet been fought, there is no specific law upon the subject beyond
that in the Decalogue, which says, "Thou shalt do no murder." But
duelling everywhere follows the steps of modern civilization, and by the
time the backwoodsman is transformed into the citizen, he has imbibed
the false notions of honour which are prevalent in Europe, and around
him, and is ready, like his progenitors, to settle his differences
with the pistol. In the majority of the States the punishment for
challenging, fighting, or acting as second, is solitary imprisonment and
hard labour for any period less than a year, and disqualification for
serving any public office for twenty years. In Vermont the punishment
is total disqualification for office, deprivation of the rights of
citizenship, and a fine; in fatal cases, the same punishment as that of
murderers. In Rhode Island, the combatant, though death does not ensue,
is liable to be carted to the gallows, with a rope about his neck, and
to sit in this trim for an hour, exposed to the peltings of the mob. He
may be further imprisoned for a year, at the option of the magistrate.
In Connecticut the punishment is total disqualification for office or
employ, and a fine, varying from one hundred to a thousand dollars. The
laws of Illinois require certain officers of the state to make oath,
previous to their instalment, that they have never been, nor ever will
be, concerned in a duel. ["Encyclopedia Americana," art. Duelling.]
Amongst the edicts against duelling promulgated at various times in
Europe, may be mentioned that of Augustus King of Poland, in 1712, which
decreed the punishment of death against principals and seconds, and
minor punishments against the bearers of a challenge. An edict was also
published at Munich, in 1773, according to which both principals and
seconds, even in duels where no one was either killed or wounded, should
be hanged, and their bodies buried at the foot of the gallows. The King
of Naples issued an ordinance against duelling in 1838, in which the
punishment of death is decreed against all concerned in a fatal
duel. The bodies of those killed, and of those who may be executed in
consequence, are to be buried in unconsecrated ground, and without any
religious ceremony; nor is any monument to be erected on the spot. The
punishment for duels in which either, or both, are wounded, and for
those in which no damage whatever is done, varies according to the
case, and consists of fine, imprisonment, loss of rank and honours, and
incapacity for filling any public situation. Bearers of challenges may
also be punished with fine and imprisonment.
It might be imagined that enactments so severe all over the civilized
world would finally eradicate a custom, the prevalence of which every
wise and good man must deplore. But the frowns of the law never yet have
taught, and never will teach, men to desist from this practice, as long
as it is felt that the lawgiver sympathises with it in his heart. The
stern judge upon the bench may say to the unfortunate wight who has been
called a liar by some unmannerly opponent, "If you challenge him, you
meditate murder, and are guilty of murder!" but the same judge, divested
of his robes of state, and mixing in the world with other men, would
say, "If you do not challenge him, if you do not run the risk of making
yourself a murderer, you will be looked upon as a mean-spirited wretch,
unfit to associate with your fellows, and deserving nothing but their
scorn and their contempt!" It is society, and not the duellist, who is
to blame. Female influence, too, which is so powerful in leading men
either to good or to evil, takes, in this case, the evil part. Mere
animal bravery has, unfortunately, such charms in the female eye, that a
successful duellist is but too often regarded as a sort of hero; and
the man who refuses to fight, though of truer courage, is thought a
poltroon, who may be trampled on. Mr. Graves, a member of the American
Legislature, who, early in 1838, killed a Mr. Cilley in a duel, truly
and eloquently said, on the floor of the House of Representatives, when
lamenting the unfortunate issue of that encounter, that society was more
to blame than he was. "Public opinion," said the repentant orator, "is
practically the paramount law of the land. Every other law, both human
and divine, ceases to be observed; yea, withers and perishes in contact
with it. It was this paramount law of this nation, and of this House,
that forced me, under the penalty of dishonour, to subject myself to the
code, which impelled me unwillingly into this tragical affair. Upon the
heads of this nation, and at the doors of this House, rests the blood
with which my unfortunate hands have been stained!"
As long as society is in this mood; as long as it thinks that the man
who refuses to resent an insult, deserved that insult, and should be
scouted accordingly, so long, it is to be feared, will duelling exist,
however severe the laws may be. Men must have redress for injuries
inflicted, and when those injuries are of such a nature that no tribunal
will take cognizance of them, the injured will take the law into their
own hands, and right themselves in the opinion of their fellows, at
the hazard of their lives. Much as the sage may affect to despise the
opinion of the world, there are few who would not rather expose their
lives a hundred times than be condemned to live on, in society, but not
of it--a by-word of reproach to all who know their history, and a mark
for scorn to point his finger at.
The only practicable means for diminishing the force of a custom which
is the disgrace of civilization, seems to be the establishment of a
court of honour, which should take cognizance of all those delicate
and almost intangible offences which yet wound so deeply. The court
established by Louis XIV might be taken as a model. No man now fights a
duel when a fit apology has been offered, and it should be the duty of
this court to weigh dispassionately the complaint of every man injured
in his honour, either by word or deed, and to force the offender to make
a public apology. If he refused the apology, he would be the breaker of
a second law; an offender against a high court, as well as against the
man he had injured, and might be punished with fine and imprisonment,
the latter to last until he saw the error of his conduct, and made the
concession which the court demanded.
If, after the establishment of this tribunal, men should be found of
a nature so bloodthirsty as not to be satisfied with its peaceful
decisions, and should resort to the old and barbarous mode of an appeal
to the pistol, some means might be found of dealing with them. To hang
them as murderers would be of no avail; for to such men death would have
few terrors. Shame alone would bring them to reason. The following
code, it is humbly suggested to all future legislators upon the subject,
would, in conjunction with the establishment of a court of honour, do
much towards eradicating this blot from society. Every man who fought a
duel, even though he did not wound his opponent, should be tried, and,
upon proof of the fact, be sentenced to have his right hand cut off.
The world would then know his true character as long as he lived. If
his habits of duelling were so inveterate, and he should learn to fire
a pistol with his left hand, he should, upon conviction of a second
offence, lose that hand also. This law, which should allow no
commutation of the punishment, under any circumstances, would lend
strength and authority to the court of honour. In the course of a few
years duelling would be ranked amongst exploded follies, and men would
begin to wonder that a custom so barbarous and so impious had ever
existed amongst them.
THE LOVE OF THE MARVELLOUS AND THE DISBELIEF OF THE TRUE.