This is a small median body, about the size of a pea, situated in front
of the apex of the coccyx and between the insertions of the levatores
ani muscles. It resembles the carotid body in its microscopical
structure, but is not so vascular. Concentric corpuscles, like those of
the thymus, have been recorded in it. It derives its arteries from the
middle sacral and its nerves from the sympathetic. Of its embryology and
comparative anatomy little is known, though J.W. Thomson Walker has
recently shown that numerous, outlying, minute masses of the same
structure lie along the course of the middle sacral artery (_Archiv f.
mikroscop. Anat._ Bd. lxiv.). The probability is that, like the carotid
body, it is sympathetic in origin. (Quain's _Anatomy_ gives excellent
illustrations of the histology of this as well as of all the other
ductless glands.)
For the literature on and further details concerning the foregoing
structures the following works should be consulted: Quain's
_Anatomy_, vol. 1 (1908, London, Longman & Co.); McMurrich's
_Development of the Human Body_ (London, Rebman, 1906); Wiedersheim's
_Vergleich. Anat. der Wirbeltiere_ (Jena, 1898). (F. G. P.)
DUDERSTADT, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover,
situated in a beautiful and fertile valley (formerly called _Goldene
Mark_) watered by the Hahle, and on the railway Wulften-Leinefelde. Pop.
(1905) 5327. It is an interesting medieval town with many ancient
buildings. Notable are the two Roman Catholic churches, beautiful Gothic
edifices of the 14th century, the Protestant church, and the handsome
town-hall. Its chief industries are woollen and cotton manufactures,
sugar-refining and cigar-making; it has also a trade in singing-birds.
Duderstadt was founded by Henry I. (the Fowler) in 929, passed later to
the monastery of Quedlinburg, and then to Brunswick. It was a member of
the Hanseatic League, and during the Thirty Years' War became a
stronghold of the Imperialists. It was taken by Duke William of Weimar
in 1632; in 1761 its walls were dismantled, and, after being alternately
Prussian and Hanoverian, it passed finally in 1866 with Hanover to
Prussia.
DUDLEY, BARONS AND EARLS OF. The holders of these English titles are
descended from John de Sutton (c. 1310-1359) of Dudley castle,
Staffordshire, who was summoned to parliament as a baron in 1342. Sutton
was the son of another John de Sutton, who had inherited Dudley Castle
through his marriage with Margaret, sister and heiress of John de Somery
(d. 1321); he was called Lord Dudley, or Lord Sutton of Dudley, the
latter being doubtless the correct form. However, his descendants, the
Suttons, were often called by the name of Dudley; and from John Dudley
of Atherington, Sussex, a younger son of John Sutton, the 5th baron, the
earls of Warwick and the earl of Leicester of the Dudley family are
descended.
John Sutton or Dudley (c. 1400-1487), the 5th baron, was first summoned
to parliament in 1440, having been viceroy of Ireland from 1428 to 1430.
He served Henry VI. as a diplomatist and also as a soldier, being taken
prisoner at the first battle of St Albans in 1455, but this did not
prevent him from enjoying the favour of Edward IV. He died on the 30th
of September 1487. He was succeeded as 6th baron by his grandson Edward
(c. 1459-1532), and one of his sons, William Dudley, was bishop of
Durham from 1476 until his death in 1483. His descendant Edward Sutton
or Dudley, the 9th baron (1567-1643), had several illegitimate sons.
Among them was Dud Dudley (1599-1684), who in 1665 published _Metallum
Martis_, describing a process of making iron with "pit-coale, sea-coale,
&c." which was put in operation at his father's ironworks at Pensnet,
Worcestershire, of which he was manager. His success aroused much
opposition on the part of other ironmasters, and his commercial ventures
at Himley, at Askew Bridge and at Bristol ended in loss and disaster.
During the Civil War he was a colonel in the army of Charles I.
Dying without lawful male issue in June 1643, the 9th baron was
succeeded in the barony by his grand-daughter, Frances (1611-1697); she
married Humble Ward (c. 1614-1670), the son of a London goldsmith, who
was created Baron Ward of Birmingham in 1644. Their son Edward
(1631-1701) succeeded both to the barony of Dudley and to that of Ward,
but these were separated when his grandson William died unmarried in May
1740. The barony of Dudley passed to a nephew, Ferdinando Dudley Lea,
falling into abeyance on his death in October 1757; that of Ward passed
to the heir male, John Ward (d. 1774), a descendant of Humble Ward. In
1763 Ward was created Viscount Dudley, and in April 1823 his grandson,
John William Ward (1781-1833), became the 4th viscount.
Educated at Oxford, John William Ward entered parliament in 1802, and
except for a few months he remained in the House of Commons until he
succeeded his father in the peerage. In 1827 he was minister for foreign
affairs under Canning and then under Goderich and under Wellington,
resigning office in May 1828. As foreign minister he was only a cipher,
but he was a man of considerable learning and had some reputation as a
writer and a talker. Dudley took an interest in the foundation of the
university of London, and his _Letters_ to the bishop of Llandaff were
published by the bishop (Edward Copleston) in 1840 (new ed. 1841). He
was created Viscount Ednam and earl of Dudley in 1827, and when he died
unmarried on the 6th of March 1833 these titles became extinct. His
barony of Ward, however, passed to a kinsman, William Humble Ward
(1781-1835), whose son, William (1817-1885), inheriting much of the dead
earl's great wealth, was created Viscount Ednam and earl of Dudley in
1860. The 2nd earl of Dudley in this creation was the latter's son
William Humble (b. 1866), who was lord-lieutenant of Ireland from 1902
to 1906, and in 1908 was appointed governor-general of Australia.
See H.S. Grazebrook in the _Herald and Genealogist_, vols. ii., v.
and vi.; in _Notes and Queries_, 2nd series, vol. xi.; and in vol. ix.
of the publications of the William Salt Society (1888).
DUDLEY, EDMUND (c. 1462-1510), minister of Henry VII. of England, was a
son of John Dudley of Atherington, Sussex, and a member of the great
baronial family of Sutton or Dudley. After studying at Oxford and at
Gray's Inn, Dudley came under the notice of Henry VII., and is said to
have been made a privy councillor at the early age of twenty-three. In
1492 he helped to negotiate the treaty of Etaples with France and soon
became prominent in assisting the king to check the lawlessness of the
barons, and at the same time to replenish his own exchequer. He and his
colleague Sir Richard Empson (q.v.) are called _fiscales judices_ by
Polydore Vergil, and owing to their extortions they became very
unpopular. Dudley, who was speaker of the House of Commons in 1504, in
addition to aiding Henry, amassed a great amount of wealth for himself,
and possessed large estates in Sussex, Dorset and Lincolnshire. When
Henry VII. died in April 1509, he was thrown into prison by order of
Henry VIII. and charged with the crime of constructive treason, being
found guilty and attainted. After having made a futile attempt to escape
from prison, he was executed on the 17th or 18th of August 1510.
Dudley's nominal crime was that during the last illness of Henry VII. he
had ordered his friends to assemble in arms in case the king died, but
the real reason for his death was doubtless the unpopularity caused by
his avarice. During his imprisonment he sought to gain the favour of
Henry VIII. by writing a treatise in support of absolute monarchy called
_The Tree of Commonwealth_. This never reached the king's hands, and was
not published until 1859, when it was printed privately in Manchester.
Dudley's first wife was Anne, widow of Roger Corbet of Morton,
Shropshire, by whom he had a daughter, Elizabeth, who married William,
6th Lord Stourton. By his second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward
Grey, Viscount Lisle, he had three sons: John, afterwards duke of
Northumberland (q.v.); Andrew (d. 1559), who was made a knight and held
various important posts during the reign of Edward VI.; and Jasper.
See Francis Bacon, _History of Henry VII._, edited by J.R. Lumby
(Cambridge, 1881); and J.S. Brewer, _The Reign of Henry VIII._,
edited by J. Gairdner (London, 1884).
DUDLEY, SIR ROBERT (1573-1649), titular duke of Northumberland and earl
of Warwick, English explorer, engineer and author, was the son of Robert
Dudley, earl of Leicester (q.v.), the favourite of Queen Elizabeth. His
mother was Lady Douglas Sheffield, daughter of Thomas, first Baron
Howard of Effingham. Leicester, who deserted Lady Douglas Sheffield for
Lettice Knollys, widow of the first earl of Essex, denied that they were
married. She asserted that they were, at Esher in Surrey, but her
marriage with Sir Edward Stafford of Grafton, after her desertion by
Leicester, would seem to be a tacit confession that her claim had no
foundation. Her son Robert was born in May 1573, was recognized by
Leicester, and sent to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1587. He inherited all
Leicester's property under the earl's will at his death in 1588, and in
the following year the property of Ambrose Dudley, earl of Warwick. In
1594 he made a voyage to the West Indies, and in 1596 he took part in
the expedition to Cadiz and was knighted. In 1592 he had married a
sister of Thomas Cavendish the circumnavigator. On her death he married
Alicia Leigh in 1596, by whom he had four daughters. After the death of
Elizabeth he endeavoured to secure recognition of his legitimacy, and
of his right to inherit the titles of his father and uncle. The
proceedings were quashed by the Star Chamber. In 1605 he obtained leave
to travel abroad, and went to Italy accompanied by the beautiful Miss
Elizabeth Southwell, daughter of Sir Robert Southwell of Woodrising, in
the dress of a page. When ordered to return home and to provide for his
deserted wife and family, he refused, was outlawed, and his property was
confiscated. On the continent he avowed himself a Roman Catholic,
married Elizabeth Southwell at Lyons, and entered the service of Cosimo
II., grand-duke of Tuscany. In the service of the grand-duke he is said
to have done some fighting against the Barbary pirates, and he was
undoubtedly employed in draining the marshes behind Leghorn, and in the
construction of the port. In 1620 the emperor Ferdinand II. gave him a
patent recognizing his claim not only to the earldom of Warwick but to
the duchy of Northumberland, which had been held by his grandfather, who
was executed by Queen Mary Tudor. In Italy Dudley was known as Duca di
Nortombria and Conte di Warwick. He died near Florence on the 6th of
September 1649, leaving a large family of sons and daughters. His
deserted wife, Alicia, was created duchess of Dudley by Charles I. in
1644, and died in 1670, when the title became extinct. Through a
daughter who married the Marquis Paleotti, Dudley was the ancestor of
the wife of the first duke of Shrewsbury (of the revolution of 1688),
and of her brother who was executed at Tyburn for murder on the 17th of
March 1718. Dudley was the author of a pamphlet addressed to King James
I., showing how the "impertinences of parliament" could be bridled by
military force. But his chief claim to memory is the magnificent _Arcano
dell mare_, published in Italian at Florence in 1645-1646 in three
volumes folio. It is a collection of all the naval knowledge of the age,
and is particularly remarkable for a scheme for the construction of a
navy in five rates which Dudley designed and described. It was reprinted
in Florence in two volumes folio in 1661 without the charts of the first
edition.
AUTHORITIES.--G.L. Craik, _Romance of the Peerage_ (London,
1848-1850), vol. iii.; Sir N.H. Nicolas, _Report of Proceedings on
the Claim to the Barony of L'Isle_ (London, 1829); and _The Italian
Biography of Sir R. Dudley_, published anonymously, privately and
without date or name of place, but known to have been written by
Doctor Vaughan Thomas, vicar of Stoneleigh, who died in 1858.
(D. H.)
DUDLEY, THOMAS (1576-1653), British colonial governor of Massachusetts,
was born in Northampton, England, in 1576, a member of the elder branch
of the family to the younger branch of which Robert Dudley, earl of
Leicester, belonged. He was the son of a country gentleman of some means
and high standing, was captain of an English company in the French
expedition of 1597, serving under Henry of Navarre, and eventually
became the steward of the earl of Lincoln's estates, which he managed
with great success for many years. Having been converted to Puritanism,
he became a strict advocate of its strictest tenets. About 1627 he
associated himself with other Lincolnshire gentlemen who in 1629 entered
into an agreement to settle in New England provided they were allowed to
take the charter with them. This proposal the general court of the
Plymouth Company agreed to, and in April 1630 Dudley sailed to America
in the same ship with John Winthrop, the newly appointed governor,
Dudley himself at the last moment being chosen deputy-governor in place
of John Humphrey (or Humfrey), the earl of Lincoln's son-in-law, whose
departure was delayed. Dudley was for many years the most influential
man in the Massachusetts Bay colony, save Winthrop, with whose policy he
was more often opposed than in agreement. He was deputy-governor in
1629-1634, in 1637-1640, in 1646-1650 and in 1651-1653, and was governor
four times, in 1634, 1640, 1645 and 1650. Soon after his arrival in the
colony he settled at Newton (Cambridge), of which he was one of the
founders; he was also one of the earliest promoters of the plan for the
establishment of Harvard College. Winthrop's decision to make Boston the
capital instead of Newton precipitated the first of the many quarrels
between the two, Dudley's sterner and harsher Puritanism, being in
strong contrast to Winthrop's more tolerant and liberal views. He was an
earnest and persistent heresy-hunter--not only the Antinomians, but
even such a good Puritan as John Cotton, against whom he brought
charges, feeling the weight of his stern and remorseless hand. His
position he himself best expressed in the following brief verse found
among his papers:
"Let men of God in courts and churches watch
O'er such as do a Toleration hatch,
Lest that ill egg bring forth a Cockatrice
To poison all with heresy and vice."
He died at Roxbury, Massachusetts, on the 31st of July 1653.
See Augustine Jones, _Life and Work of Thomas Dudley, the Second
Governor of Massachusetts_ (Boston, 1899); and the _Life of Mr Thomas
Dudley, several times Governor of the Colony of Massachusetts, written
as is supposed by Cotton Mather_, edited by Charles Deane (Cambridge,
1870). Dudley's interesting and valuable "Letter to the Countess of
Lincoln," is reprinted in Alexander Young's _Chronicles of the
Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_ (Boston, 1846), and in
the New Hampshire Historical Society _Collections_, vol. iv. (1834).
His son JOSEPH DUDLEY (1647-1720), colonial governor of Massachusetts,
was born in Roxbury, Massachusetts, on the 23rd of September 1647. He
graduated at Harvard College in 1665, became a member of the general
court, and in 1682 was sent by Massachusetts to London to prevent the
threatened revocation of her charter by Charles II. There, with an eye
to his personal advancement, he secretly advised the king to annul the
charter; this was done, and Dudley, by royal appointment, became
president of the provisional council. With the advent of the new
governor, Sir Edmund Andros, Dudley became a judge of the superior court
and censor of the press. Upon the deposition of Andros, Dudley was
imprisoned and sent with him to England, but was soon set free. In
1691-1692 he was chief-justice of New York, presiding over the court
that condemned Leisler and Milburn. Returning to England in 1693, he was
lieutenant-governor of the Isle of Wight and a member of parliament, and
in 1702, after a long intrigue, secured from Queen Anne a commission as
governor of Massachusetts, serving until 1715. His administration was
marked, particularly in the earlier years, by ceaseless conflict with
the general court, from which he demanded a regular fixed salary instead
of an annual grant. He was active in raising volunteers for the
so-called Queen Anne's War, and in 1707 sent a fruitless expedition
against Port Royal. He was accused by the Boston merchants, who
petitioned for his removal, of being in league with smugglers and
illicit traders, and in 1708 a bitter attack on his administration was
published in London, entitled _The Deplorable State of New England by
reason of a Covetous and Treacherous Governor and Pusillanimous
Counsellors_. His character may be best summed up in the words of one of
his successors, Thomas Hutchinson, that "he had as many virtues as can
consist with so great a thirst for honour and power." He died at Roxbury
on the 2nd of April 1720.
Joseph Dudley's son, PAUL DUDLEY (1675-1751), graduated at Harvard in
1690, studied law at the Temple in London, and became attorney-general
of Massachusetts (1702 to 1718). He was associate justice of the
superior court of that province from 1718 to 1745, and chief justice
from 1745 until his death. He was a member of the Royal Society
(London), to whose _Transactions_ he contributed several valuable papers
on the natural history of New England, and was the founder of the
Dudleian lectures on religion at Harvard.
The best extended account of Joseph Dudley's administration is in J.
G. Palfrey's _History of New England_, vol. iv. (Boston, 1875).
DUDLEY, a municipal, county and parliamentary borough and market-town of
Worcestershire, England, in a portion of that county enclaved in
Staffordshire, 8 m. W.N.W. of Birmingham, and 121 N.W. of London by the
London & North Western railway. The Great Western railway also serves
the town. Pop. (1891) 45,724; (1901) 48,733. Dudley lies on an elevated
ridge, in the midst of the district of the midlands known as the Black
Country, which is given up to ironworks and coal mines. The "ten-yard"
coal, in the neighbourhood, is the thickest seam worked in England.
Limestone is extensively quarried, fire-clay is abundant; and
iron-founding, brass-founding, engineering works, glass works and brick
works are comprised in the industries. Among the principal buildings are
the churches of the five parishes into which the town is divided, the
town hall, county court, free libraries, and school of art, grammar
school with university and foundation scholarships, technical school,
mechanics' institute, Guest hospital (founded by Joseph Guest, a
citizen, in 1868), and a dispensary. In the market-place stands a large
domed fountain, erected by the earl of Dudley (1867). There is a
geological society with a museum, for the neighbourhood of Dudley is
full of geological interest, the Silurian limestone abounding in
fossils. To the north of the town are extensive remains of an ancient
castle, surrounded by beautiful grounds. The hill on which it stands is
of limestone, which by quarrying has been hollowed out in extensive
chambers and galleries. The view from the castle is remarkable. The
whole district is seen to be set with chimneys, pit-buildings and
factories; and at night the glare of furnaces reveals the tireless
activity of the Black Country. Dudley and its environs are connected by
a tramway system, and water communication is afforded by the Dudley
canal with Birmingham and with the river Severn.
Included in the parliamentary borough, but in Staffordshire, and 2-1/2
m. by rail S.W. of Dudley, is Brierley Hill, a market-town on the river
Stour and the Stourbridge and Birmingham Canals. Its chief buildings are
the modern church of St Michael, standing on a hill, the Roman Catholic
church of St Mary, by A.W. Pugin, the town hall and free library.
Between this and Dudley lie the great ironworks of Roundoak, and the
extensive suburb of Netherton in the enclaved portion of Worcestershire.
The industries are similar to those of Dudley. Three miles W. of Dudley
is Kingswinford, a mining township, with large brick works, giving name
to a parliamentary division of Staffordshire. The parliamentary borough
of Dudley returns one member. The town itself is governed by a mayor, 10
aldermen and 30 councillors. Area 3546 acres.
In medieval times the importance of Dudley (_Dudelei_) depended on the
castle, which is mentioned in the Domesday Survey. Before the Conquest
Earl Eadwine held the manor, which in 1086 belonged to William
FitzAnsculf, from whom it passed, probably by marriage, to Fulk Paynel,
afterwards to the Somerys, Suttons and Wards, whose descendants (earls
of Dudley) now hold it. The first mention of Dudley as a borough occurs
in an inquisition taken after the death of Roger de Somery in 1272. This
does not give a clear account of the privileges held by the burgesses,
but shows that they had probably been freed from some or all of the
services required from them as manorial tenants, in return for a fixed
rent. In 1865 Dudley was incorporated. Before that time it was governed
by a high and low bailiff appointed every year at the court leet of the
manor. Roger de Somery evidently held a market by prescription in Dudley
before 1261, in which year he came to terms with the dean of
Wolverhampton, who had set up a market in Wolverhampton to the
disadvantage of Roger's market at Dudley. According to the terms of the
agreement the dean might continue his market on condition that Roger and
his tenants should be free from toll there. Two fairs, on the 21st of
September and the 21st of April, were granted in 1684 to Edward Lord
Ward, lord of the manor. Dudley was represented in the parliament of
1295, but not again until the privilege was revived by the Reform Act of
1832. Mines of sea-coal in Dudley are mentioned as early as the reign of
Edward I., and by the beginning of the 17th century mining had become an
important industry.
DUDO, or DUDON (fl. c. 1000), Norman historian was dean of St Quentin,
where he was born about 965. Sent in 986 by Albert I. count of
Vermandois, on an errand to Richard I., duke of Normandy, he succeeded
in his mission, and, having made a very favourable impression at the
Norman court, spent some years in that country. During a second stay in
Normandy Dudo wrote his history of the Normans, a task which Duke
Richard I. had urged him to undertake. Very little else is known about
his life, except that he died before 1043. Written between 1015 and
1030, his _Historia Normannorum_, or _Libri III. de moribus et actis
primorum Normanniae ducum_, was dedicated to Adalberon, bishop of Laon.
Dudo does not appear to have consulted any existing documents for his
history, but to have obtained his information from oral tradition, much
of it being supplied by Raoul, count of Ivry, a half-brother of Duke
Richard I. Consequently the _Historia_ partakes of the nature of a
romance, and on this ground has been regarded as untrustworthy by such
competent critics as E. Dummler and G. Waitz. Other authorities,
however, e.g. J. Lair and J. Steenstrup, while admitting the existence
of a legendary element, regard the book as of considerable value for the
history of the Normans. Although Dudo was acquainted with Virgil and
other Latin writers, his Latin is affected and obscure. The _Historia_,
which is written alternately in prose and in verse of several metres, is
divided into four parts, and deals with the history of the Normans from
852 to the death of Duke Richard I. in 996. It glorifies the Normans,
and was largely used by William of Jumieges, Wace, Robert of Torigni,
William of Poitiers and Hugh of Fleury in compiling their chronicles,
and was first published by A. Duchesne in his _Historiae Normannorum
scriptores antiqui_, at Paris in 1619. Another edition is in the
_Patrologia Latina_, tome cxli. of J.P. Migne (Paris, 1844), but the
best is perhaps the one edited by J. Lair (Caen, 1865).
See E. Dummler, "Zur Kritik Dudos von St Quentin" in the _Forschungen
zur deutschen Geschichte_, Bande vi. and ix. (Gottingen, 1866); G.
Waitz, "Uber die Quellen zur Geschichte der Begrundung der
normannischen Herrschaft in Frankreich," in the _Gottinger gel.
Anzeigen_ (Gottingen, 1866); J.C.H.R. Steenstrup, _Normannerne_,
Band i. (Copenhagen, 1876); J. Lair, _Etude critique et historique sur
Dudon_ (Caen, 1865); G. Kortung, _Uber die Quellen des Roman de Rou_
(Leipzig, 1867); W. Wattenbach, _Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen_, Band
i. (Berlin, 1904); and A. Molinier, _Les Sources de l'histoire de
France_, tome ii. (Paris, 1902).
DUDWEILER, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on the
Sulzbach, 4 m. by rail N.E. from Saarbrucken. It has extensive coal
mines and ironworks and produces fire-proof bricks. Pop. (1905) 16,320.
DUEL (Ital. _duello_, Lat. _duellum_--old form of _bellum_--from _duo_,
two), a prearranged encounter between two persons, with deadly weapons,
in accordance with conventional rules, with the object of voiding a
personal quarrel or of deciding a point of honour. The first recorded
instance of the word occurs in Coryate's _Crudities_ (1611), but
Shakespeare has _duello_ in this sense, and uses "duellist" of Tybalt in
_Romeo and Juliet_. In its earlier meaning of a judicial combat we find
the word latinized in the Statute of Wales (Edw. I., Act 12), "_Placita
de terris in partibus istis non habent terminari per duellum_."
Duels in the modern sense were unknown to the ancient world, and their
origin must be sought in the feudal age of Europe. The single combats
recorded in Greek and Roman history and legend, of Hector and Achilles,
Aeneas and Turnus, the Horatii and Curiatii, were incidents in national
wars and have nothing in common with the modern duel. It is, however,
noteworthy that in Tacitus (_Germania_, cap. x.) we find the rudiments
of the judicial duel (see WAGER, for the wager of battle). Domestic
differences, he tells us, were settled by a legalized form of combat
between the disputants, and when a war was impending a captive from the
hostile tribe was armed and pitted against a national champion, and the
issue of the duel was accepted as an omen. The judicial combat was a
Teutonic institution, and it was in fact an appeal from human justice to
the God of battles, partly a sanction of the current creed that might is
right, that the brave not only will win but deserve to win. It was on
these grounds that Gundobald justified, against the complaints of a
bishop, the famous edict passed at Lyons (A.D. 501) which established
the wager of battle as a recognized form of trial. It is God, he argued,
who directs the issue of national wars, and in private quarrels we may
trust His providence to favour the juster cause. Thus, as Gibbon
comments, the absurd and cruel practice of judicial duels, which had
been peculiar to some tribes of Germany, was propagated and established
in all the monarchies of Europe from Sicily to the Baltic. Yet in its
defence it may be urged that it abolished a worse evil, the compurgation
by oath which put a premium on perjury, and the ordeal, or judgment of
God, when the cause was decided by blind chance, or more often by
priestcraft.
The judicial combat.
Those who are curious to observe the formalities and legal rules of a
judicial combat will find them described at length in the 28th book of
Montesquieu's _Esprit des lois_. On these regulations he well remarks
that, as there are an infinity of wise things conducted in a very
foolish manner, so there are some foolish things conducted in a very
wise manner. For our present purpose it is sufficient to observe the
development of the idea of personal honour from which the modern duel
directly sprang. In the ancient laws of the Swedes we find that if any
man shall say to another, "You are not a man equal to other men," or
"You have not the heart of a man," and the other shall reply, "I am a
man as good as you," they shall meet on the highway, and then follow the
regulations for the combat. What is this but the modern challenge? By
the law of the Lombards if one man call another arga, the insulted party
might defy the other to mortal combat. What is _arga_ but the _dummer
Junger_ of the German student? Beaumanoir thus describes a legal process
under Louis le Debonnaire:--The appellant begins by a declaration before
the judge that the appellee is guilty of a certain crime; if the
appellee answers that his accuser lies, the judge then ordains the duel.
Is not this the modern point of honour, by which to be given the lie is
an insult which can only be wiped out by blood?
From Germany the judicial combat rapidly spread to France, where it
flourished greatly from the 10th to the 12th century, the period of
customary law. By French kings it was welcomed as a limitation of the
judicial powers of their half independent vassals. It was a form of
trial open to all freemen and in certain cases, as under Louis VI., the
privilege was extended to serfs. Even the church resorted to it not
unfrequently to settle disputes concerning church property. Abbots and
priors as territorial lords and high justiciaries had their share in the
confiscated goods of the defeated combatant, and Pope Nicholas when
applied to in 858 pronounced it "a just and legitimate combat." Yet only
three years before the council of Valence had condemned the practice,
imposing the severest penance on the victor and refusing the last rites
of the church to the vanquished as to a suicide. In 1385 a duel was
fought, the result of which was so preposterous that even the most
superstitious began to lose faith in the efficacy of such a judgment of
God. A certain Jacques Legris was accused by the wife of Jean Carrouge
of having introduced himself by night in the guise of her husband whom
she was expecting on his return from the Crusades. A duel was ordained
by the parlement of Paris, which was fought in the presence of Charles
VI. Legris was defeated and hanged on the spot. Not long after, a
criminal arrested for some other offence confessed himself to be the
author of the outrage. No institution could long survive so open a
confutation, and it was annulled by the parlement. Henceforward the duel
in France ceases to be an appeal to Heaven, and becomes merely a
satisfaction of wounded honour. Under Louis XII. and Francis I. we find
the first vestiges of tribunals of honour. The last instance of a duel
authorized by the magistrates, and conducted according to the forms of
law, was the famous one between Francois de Vivonne de la Chataignerie
and Guy Chabot de Jarnac. The duel was fought on the 10th of July 1547
in the courtyard of the chateau of St Germain-en-Laye, in the presence
of the king and a large assembly of courtiers. It was memorable in two
ways. It enriched the French language with a new phrase; a sly and
unforeseen blow, such as that by which de Jarnac worsted La
Chataignerie, has since been called a _coup de Jarnac_. And Henry,
grieved at the death of his favourite, swore a solemn oath that he would
never again permit a duel to be fought. This led to the first of the
many royal edicts against duelling. By a decree of the council of Trent
(cap. xix.) a ban was laid on "the detestable use of duels, an invention
of the devil to compass the destruction of souls together with a bloody
death of the body."
In England, it is now generally agreed, the wager of battle did not
exist before the time of the Norman Conquest. Some previous examples
have been adduced, but on examination they will be seen to belong rather
to the class of single combats between the champions of two opposing
armies. One such instance is worth quoting as a curious illustration of
the superstition of the time. It occurs in a rare tract printed in
London, 1610, _The Duello_, or _Single Combat_. "Danish irruptions and
the bad aspects of Mars having drencht the common mother earth with her
sonnes' blood streames, under the reigne of Edmund, a Saxon monarch,
_misso in compendium_ (so worthy Camden expresseth it) _bello utriusque
gentis fata Edmundo Anglorum et Canuto Danorum regibus commissa fuerunt,
qui singulari certamine de summa imperij in hac insula_ (that is, the
Eight in Glostershire) _depugnarunt."_ By the laws of William the
Conqueror the trial by battle was only compulsory when the opposite
parties were both Normans, in other cases it was optional. As the two
nations were gradually merged into one, this form of trial spread, and
until the reign of Henry II. it was the only mode for determining a suit
for the recovery of land. The method of procedure is admirably described
by Shakespeare in the opening scene in _Richard II._, where Henry of
Bolingbroke, duke of Hereford, challenges Thomas, duke of Norfolk; in
the mock-heroic battle between Horner the Armourer and his man Peter in
_Henry VI._; and by Sir W. Scott in the _Fair Maid of Perth_, where
Henry Gow appears before the king as the champion of Magdalen Proudfute.
The judicial duel never took root in England as it did in France. In
civil suits it was superseded by the grand assize of Henry II., and in
cases of felony by indictment at the prosecution of the crown. One of
the latest instances occurred in the reign of Elizabeth, 1571, when the
lists were actually prepared and the justices of the common pleas
appeared at Tothill Fields as umpires of the combat. Fortunately the
petitioner failed to put in an appearance, and was consequently
nonsuited (see Spelman, _Glossary_, s.v. "Campus"). As late as 1817 Lord
Ellenborough, in the case of _Thornton_ v. _Ashford_, pronounced that
"the general law of the land is that there shall be a trial by battle in
cases of appeal unless the party brings himself within some of the
exceptions." Thornton was accused of murdering Mary Ashford, and claimed
his right to challenge the appellant, the brother of the murdered girl,
to wager of battle. His suit was allowed, and, the challenge being
refused, the accused escaped. Next year the law was abolished (59 Geo.
III., c. 46).
The duel of honour.
In France.
In sketching the history of the judicial combat we have traced the
parentage of the modern duel. Strip the former of its legality, and
divest it of its religious sanction, and the latter remains. We are
justified, then, in dating the commencement of duelling from the
abolition of the wager of battle. To pursue its history we must return
to France, the country where it first arose, and the soil on which it
has most flourished. The causes which made it indigenous to France are
sufficiently explained by the condition of society and the national
character. As Buckle has pointed out, duelling is a special development
of chivalry, and chivalry is one of the phases of the protective spirit
which was predominant in France up to the time of the Revolution. Add to
this the keen sense of personal honour, the susceptibility and the
pugnacity which distinguish the French race. Montaigne, when touching on
this subject in his essays, says, "Put three Frenchmen together on the
plains of Libya, and they will not be a month in company without
scratching one another's eyes out." The third chapter of d'Audiguier's
_Ancien usage des duels_ is headed, "Pourquoi les seuls Francais se
battent en duel." English literature abounds with allusions to this
characteristic of the French nation. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who was
ambassador at the court of Louis XIII., says, "There is scarce a
Frenchman worth looking on who has not killed his man in a duel." Ben
Jonson, in his _Magnetic Lady_, makes Compass, the scholar and soldier,
thus describe France, "that garden of humanity":--
"There every gentleman professing arms
Thinks he is bound in honour to embrace
The bearing of a challenge for another,
Without or questioning the cause or asking
Least colour of a reason."
Duels were not common before the 16th century. Hallam attributes their
prevalence to the barbarous custom of wearing swords as a part of
domestic dress, a fashion which was not introduced till the later part
of the 15th century. In 1560 the states-general at Orleans supplicated
Charles IX. to put a stop to duelling. Hence the famous ordinance of
1566, drawn up by the chancellor de l'Hopital, which served as the basis
of the successive ordinances of the following kings. Under the frivolous
and sanguinary reign of Henry III., "who was as eager for excitement as
a woman," the rage for duels spread till it became almost an epidemic.
In 1602 the combined remonstrances of the church and the magistrates
extorted from the king an edict condemning to death whoever should give
or accept a challenge or act as second. But public opinion was revolted
by such rigour, and the statue remained a dead letter. A duel forms a
fit conclusion to the reign. A hair-brained youth named L'Isle Marivaux
swore that he would not survive his beloved king, and threw his cartel
into the air. It was at once picked up, and Marivaux soon obtained the
death he had courted. Henry IV. began his reign by an edict against
duels, but he was known in private to favour them; and, when de Crequi
asked leave to fight Don Philip of Savoy, he is reported to have said,
"Go, and if I were not a king I would be your second." Fontenay-Mareuil
says, in his _Memoires_, that in the eight years between 1601 and 1609,
2000 men of noble birth fell in duels. In 1609 a more effective measure
was taken at the instance of Sully by the establishment of a court of
honour. The edict decrees that all aggrieved persons shall address
themselves to the king, either directly or through the medium of the
constables, marshals, &c.; that the king shall decide, whether, if an
accommodation could not be effected, permission to fight should be
given; that the aggressor, if pronounced in the wrong, shall in any case
be suspended from any public office or employment, and be mulcted of
one-third of his revenue till he has satisfied the aggrieved party; that
any one giving or receiving a challenge shall forfeit all right of
reparation and all his offices; that any one who kills his adversary in
an unauthorized duel shall suffer death without burial, and his children
shall be reduced to villanage; that seconds, if they take part in a
duel, shall suffer death, if not, shall be degraded from the profession
of arms. This edict has been pronounced by Henri Martin "the wisest
decree of the ancient monarchy on a matter which involves so many
delicate and profound questions of morals, politics, and religion
touching civil rights" (_Histoire de France_, x. 466).
In the succeeding reign the mania for duels revived. Rostand's _Cyrano_
is a life-like modern portraiture of French bloods in the first half of
the 17th century. De Houssaye tells us that in Paris when friends met
the first question was, "Who fought yesterday? who is to fight to-day?"
They fought by night and day, by moonlight and by torch-light, in the
public streets and squares. A hasty word, a misconceived gesture, a
question about the colour of a riband or an embroidered letter, such
were the commonest pretexts for a duel. The slighter and more frivolous
the dispute, the less were they inclined to submit them to the king for
adjudication. Often, like gladiators or prize-fighters, they fought for
the pure love of fighting. A misunderstanding is cleared up on the
ground. "N'importe," cry the principals, "puisque nous sommes ici,
battons-nous." Seconds, as Montaigne tells us, are no longer witnesses,
but must take part themselves unless they would be thought wanting in
affection or courage; and he goes on to complain that men are no longer
contented with a single second, "c'etait anciennement des duels, ce sont
a cette heure rencontres et batailles." There is no more striking
instance of Richelieu's firmness and power as a statesman than his
conduct in the matter of duelling. In his _Testament politique_ he has
assigned his reasons for disapproving it as a statesman and
ecclesiastic. But this disapproval was turned to active detestation by a
private cause. His elder brother, the head of the house, had fallen in a
duel stabbed to the heart by an enemy of the cardinal. Already four
edicts had been published under Louis XIII. with little or no effect,
when in 1626 there was published a new edict condemning to death any one
who had killed his adversary in a duel, or had been found guilty of
sending a challenge a second time. Banishment and partial confiscation
of goods were awarded for lesser offences. But this edict differed from
preceding ones not so much in its severity as in the fact that it was
the first which was actually enforced. The cardinal began by imposing
the penalties of banishment and fines, but, these proving ineffectual to
stay the evil, he determined to make a terrible example. To quote his
own words to the king, "Il s'agit de couper la gorge aux duels ou aux
edits de votre Majeste." The count de Boutteville, a renommist who had
already been engaged in twenty-one affairs of honour, determined out of
pure bravado to fight a twenty-second time. The duel took place at
midday on the Place Royale. Boutteville was arrested with his second,
the count de Chapelles; they were tried by the parlement of Paris,
condemned and, in spite of all the influence of the powerful house of
Montmorenci, of which de Boutteville was a branch, they were both
beheaded on the 21st of June 1627. For a short time the ardour of
duellists was cooled. But the lesson soon lost its effect. Only five
years later we read in the _Mercure de France_ that two gentlemen who
had killed one another in a duel were, by the cardinal's orders, hanged
on a gallows, stripped and with their heads downwards, in the sight of
all the people. This was a move in the right direction, since, for
fashionable vices, ridicule and ignominy is a more drastic remedy than
death. It was on this principle that Caraccioli, prince of Melfi, when
viceroy of Piedmont, finding that his officers were being decimated by
duelling, proclaimed that all duels should be fought on the parapet of
the Ponte Vecchio, and if one of the combatants chanced to fall into the
river he should on no account be pulled out.
Under the long reign of Louis XIV. many celebrated duels took place, of
which the most remarkable were that between the duke of Guise and Count
Coligny, the last fought on the Place Royale, and that between the dukes
of Beaufort and Nemours, each attended by four friends. Of the ten
combatants, Nemours and two others were killed on the spot, and none
escaped without some wound. No less than eleven edicts against duelling
were issued under le Grand Monarque. That of 1643 established a supreme
court of honour composed of the marshals of France; but the most famous
was that of 1679, which confirmed the enactments of his predecessors,
Henry IV. and Louis XII. At the same time a solemn agreement was entered
into by the principal nobility that they would never engage in a duel on
any pretence whatever. A medal was struck to commemorate the occasion,
and the firmness of the king, in refusing pardon to all offenders,
contributed more to restrain this scourge of society than all the
efforts of his predecessors.
The subsequent history of duelling in France may be more shortly
treated. In the preamble to the edict of 1704 Louis XIV. records his
satisfaction at seeing under his reign an almost entire cessation of
those fatal combats which by the inveterate force of custom had so long
prevailed. Addison (_Spectator_, 99) notes it as one of the most
glorious exploits of his reign to have banished the false point of
honour. Under the regency of Louis XV. there was a brief revival. The
last legislative act for the suppression of duels was passed on the 12th
of April 1723. Then came the Revolution, which in abolishing the _ancien
regime_ fondly trusted that with it would go the duel, one of the
privileges and abuses of an aristocratic society. Dupleix, in his
_Military Law concerning the Duel_ (1611), premises that these have no
application to lawyers, merchants, financiers or justices. This explains
why in the legislation of the National Assembly there is no mention of
duels. Camille Desmoulins when challenged shrugged his shoulders and
replied to the charge of cowardice that he would prove his courage on
other fields than the Bois de Boulogne. The two great Frenchmen whose
writings preluded the French Revolution both set their faces against it.
Voltaire had indeed, as a young man, in obedience to the dictates of
society, once sought satisfaction from a nobleman for a brutal insult,
and had reflected on his temerity in the solitude of the Bastille.[1]
Henceforward he inveighed against the practice, not only for its
absurdity, but also for its aristocratic exclusiveness. Rousseau had
said of duelling, "It is not an institution of honour, but a horrible
and barbarous custom, which a courageous man despises and a good man
abhors." Napoleon was a sworn foe to it. "Bon duelliste mauvais soldat"
is one of his best known sayings; and, when the king of Sweden sent him
a challenge, he replied that he would order a fencing-master to attend
him as plenipotentiary. After the battle of Waterloo duels such as Lever
loves to depict were frequent between disbanded French officers and
those of the allies in occupation. The restoration of the Bourbons
brought with it a fresh crop of duels. Since then duels have been
frequent in France--more frequent, however, in novels than in real
life--fought mainly between politicians and journalists, and with rare
exceptions bloodless affairs. If fought with pistols, the distance and
the weapons chosen render a hit improbable; and, if fought with rapiers,
honour is generally satisfied with the first blood drawn. Among
Frenchmen famous in politics or letters who have "gone out" may be
mentioned Armand Carrel, who fell in an encounter with Emile Girardin;
Thiers, who thus atoned for a youthful indiscretion; the elder Dumas;
Lamartine; Ste Beuve, who to show at once his sangfroid and his sense of
humour, fought under an umbrella; Ledru Rollin; Edmond About; Clement
Thomas; Veuillot, the representative of the church militant; Rochefort;
and Boulanger, the Bonapartist _fanfaron_, whose discomfiture in a duel
with Floquet resulted in a notable loss of popular respect.
In England.
Duelling did not begin in England till some hundred years after it had
arisen in France. There is no instance of a private duel fought in
England before the 16th century, and they are rare before the reign of
James I. A very fair notion of the comparative popularity of duelling,
and of the feeling with which it was regarded at various periods, might
be gathered by examining the part it plays in the novels and lighter
literature of the times. The earliest duels we remember in fiction are
that in the _Monastery_ between Sir Piercie Shafton and Halbert
Glendinning, and that in _Kenilworth_ between Tressilian and Varney.
(That in _Anne of Geierstein_ either is an anachronism or must reckon as
a wager by battle.) Under James I. we have the encounter between Nigel
and Lord Dalgarno. The greater evil of war, as we observed in French
history, expels the lesser, and the literature of the Commonwealth is in
this respect a blank. With the Restoration there came a reaction against
Puritan morality, and a return to the gallantry and loose manners of
French society, which is best represented by the theatre of the day. The
drama of the Restoration abounds in duels. Passing on to the reign of
Queen Anne, we find the subject frequently discussed in the _Tatler_ and
the _Spectator_, and Addison points in his happiest way the moral to a
contemporary duel between Mr Thornhill and Sir Cholmeley Dering. "I come
not," says Spinomont to King Pharamond, "I come not to implore your
pardon, I come to relate my sorrow, a sorrow too great for human life to
support. Know that this morning I have killed in a duel the man whom of
all men living I love best." No reader of _Esmond_ can forget
Thackeray's description of the doubly fatal duel between the duke of
Hamilton and Lord Mohun, which is historical, or the no less life-like
though fictitious duel between Lord Mohun and Lord Castlewood. The duel
between the two brothers in Stevenson's _Master of Ballantrae_ is one of
the best conceived in fiction. Throughout the reigns of the Georges they
are frequent. Richardson expresses his opinion on the subject in six
voluminous letters to the _Literary Repositor_. Sheridan, like Farquhar
in a previous generation, not only dramatized a duel, but fought two
himself. Byron thus commemorates the bloodless duel between Tom Moore
and Lord Jeffrey:--
"Can none remember that eventful day,
That ever glorious almost fatal fray,
When Little's leadless pistols met the eye,
And Bow Street myrmidons stood laughing by?"
There are no duels in Miss Austen's novels, but in those of Miss
Edgeworth, her contemporary, there are three or four. As we approach the
19th century they become rarer in fiction. Thackeray's novels, indeed,
abound in duels. "His royal highness the late lamented commander-in-chief"
had the greatest respect for Major Macmurdo, as a man who had conducted
scores of affairs for his acquaintance with the greatest prudence and
skill; and Rawdon Crawley's duelling pistols, "the same which I shot
Captain Marker," have become a household word. Dickens, on the other hand,
who depicts contemporary English life, and mostly in the middle classes,
in all his numerous works has only three; and George Eliot never once
refers to a duel. Tennyson, using a poet's privilege, laid the scene of a
duel in the year of the Crimean War, but he echoes the spirit of the times
when he stigmatizes "the Christless code that must have life for a blow."
Browning, who delights in cases of conscience, has given admirably the
double moral aspect of the duel in his two lyrics entitled "Before" and
"After."
To pass from fiction to fact we will select the most memorable English
duels of the last century and a half. Lord Byron killed Mr Chaworth in
1765; Charles James Fox and Mr Adams fought in 1779; duke of York and
Colonel Lennox, 1789; William Pitt and George Tierney, 1796; George
Canning and Lord Castlereagh, 1809; Mr Christie killed John Scott,
editor of the _London Magazine_, 1821; duke of Wellington and earl of
Winchelsea, 1829; Mr Roebuck and Mr Black, editor of _Morning
Chronicle_, 1835; Lord Alvanley and a son of Daniel O'Connell in the
same year; Earl Cardigan wounded Captain Tuckett, was tried by his
peers, and acquitted on a legal quibble, 1840.
The year 1808 is memorable in the annals of duelling in England. Major
Campbell was sentenced to death and executed for killing Captain Boyd in
a duel. In this case it is true that there was a suspicion of foul play;
but in the case of Lieutenant Blundell, who was killed in a duel in
1813, though all had been conducted with perfect fairness, the surviving
principal and the seconds were all convicted of murder and sentenced to
death, and, although the royal pardon was obtained, they were all
cashiered. The next important date is the year 1843, when public
attention was painfully called to the subject by a duel in which Colonel
Fawcett was shot by his brother-in-law, Lieutenant Monro. The survivor,
whose career was thereby blasted, had, it was well known, gone out most
reluctantly, in obedience to the then prevailing military code. A full
account of the steps taken by the prince consort, and of the
correspondence which passed between him and the duke of Wellington, will
be found in the _Life of the Prince_ by Sir Theodore Martin. The duke,
unfortunately, was not an unprejudiced counsellor. Not only had he been
out himself, but, in writing to Lord Londonderry on the occasion of the
duel between the marquess and Ensign Battier in 1824, he had gone so far
as to state that he considered the probability of the Hussars having to
fight a duel or two a matter of no consequence. In the previous year
there had been formed in London the association for the suppression of
duelling. It included leading members of both houses of parliament and
distinguished officers of both services. The first report, issued in
1844, gives a memorial of the association presented to Queen Victoria
through Sir James Graham, and in a debate in the House of Commons (15th
of March 1844) Sir H. Hardinge, the secretary of war, announced to the
House that Her Majesty had expressed herself desirous of devising some
expedient by which the barbarous practice of duelling should be as much
as possible discouraged. In the same debate Mr Turner reckoned the
number of duels fought during the reign of George III. at 172, of which
91 had been attended with fatal results; yet in only two of these cases
had the punishment of death been inflicted. But though the proposal of
the prince consort to establish courts of honour met with no favour, yet
it led to an important amendment of the articles of war (April 1844).
The 98th article ordains that "every person who shall fight or promote a
duel, or take any steps thereto, or who shall not do his best to prevent
duel, shall, if an officer, be cashiered, or suffer such other penalty
as a general court-martial may award." These articles, with a few verbal
changes, were incorporated in the consolidated Army Act of 1879 (section
38), which is still in force.
In Germany.
In the German army duels are still authorized by the military code as a
last resort in grave cases. A German officer who is involved in a
difficulty with another is bound to notify the circumstance to a council
of honour at the latest as soon as he has either given or received a
challenge. A council of honour consists of three officers of different
ranks and is instructed, if possible, to bring about a reconciliation.
If unsuccessful it must see that the conditions of the duel are not out
of proportion to the gravity of the quarrel. Public opinion was greatly
roused by a tragic duel fought by two officers of the reserve in 1896;
and the German emperor in a cabinet order of 1897, confirmed in 1901,
enforced the regulation of the military court of honour, and gave
warning that any infringement would be visited with the full penalties
of the law. It is, notwithstanding, still the fact that a German officer
who is not prepared to accept a challenge and fight, if the opinion of
his regiment demands it, must leave the service. The German penal code
(_Reichsstrafgesetzbuch_, pars. 101-110) only punishes a duel when it is
fought with lethal weapons; and much controversy has raged round the
question of the _Mensuren_ or students' duels, which, as being conducted
with sharpened rapiers, have, despite the precautions taken, in the way
of bandaging the vital parts of the body which a cut would reach, to
reduce the risk of a fatal issue to a minimum, been declared by the
Supreme Court of the Empire to fall under the head of duels, and as such
to be punishable.
The _Mensuren_ (German students' duels) above referred to are frequently
misunderstood. They bear little resemblance, save in form, to the duel
_a outrance_, and should rather be considered in the light of athletic
games, in which the overflow of high animal spirits in young Germany
finds its outlet. These combats are indulged in principally by picked
representatives of the "corps" (recognized clubs), and according to the
position and value of the _Schmisse_ (cuts which have landed) points are
awarded to either side. Formerly these so-called duels could be openly
indulged in at most universities without let or hindrance. Gradually,
however, the academic authorities took cognizance of the illegality of
the practice, and in many cases inflicted punishment for the offence.
Nowadays, owing to the decision of the supreme court reserving to the
common law tribunals the power to deal with such cases, the governing
bodies at the universities have only a disciplinary control, which is
exercised at the various seats of learning in various degrees: in some
the practice is silently tolerated, or at most visited by reprimand; in
others, again, by relegation or _carcer_--with the result that the
students of one university frequently visit another, in order to be able
to fight out their battles under less rigorous surveillance.
Modern views.
Any formal discussion of the morality of duelling is, in England at
least, happily superfluous. No fashionable vice has been so unanimously
condemned both by moralists and divines, and in tracing its history we
are reminded of the words of Tacitus, "in civitate nostra et vetabitur
semper et retinebitur." Some, however, of the problems, moral and
social, which it suggests may be shortly noticed. That duelling
flourished so long in England the law is, perhaps, as much to blame as
society. It was doubtless from the fact that duels were at first a form
of legal procedure that English law has refused to take cognizance of
private duels. A duel in the eye of the law differs nothing from an
ordinary murder. The greatest English legal authorities, from the time
of Elizabeth downwards, such as Coke, Bacon and Hale, have all
distinctly affirmed this interpretation of the law. But here as
elsewhere the severity of the penalty defeated its own object. The
public conscience revolted against a Draconian code which made no
distinction between wilful murder and a deadly combat wherein each party
consented to his own death or submitted to the risk of it. No jury could
be found to convict when conviction involved in the same penalty a Fox
or a Pitt and a Turpin or a Brownrigg. Such, however, was the
conservatism of English publicists that Bentham was the first to point
out clearly this defect of the law, and propose a remedy. In his
_Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation_, published in
1789, Bentham discusses the subject with his usual boldness and logical
precision. In his exposition of the absurdity of duelling considered as
a branch of penal justice, and its inefficiency as a punishment, he only
restates in a clearer form the arguments of Paley. So far there is
nothing novel in his treatment of the subject. But he soon parts company
with the Christian moralist, and proceeds to show that duelling does,
however rudely and imperfectly, correct and repress a real social evil.
"It entirely effaces a blot which an insult imprints upon the honour.
Vulgar moralists, by condemning public opinion upon this point, only
confirm the fact." He then points out the true remedy for the evil. It
is to extend the same legal protection to offences against honour as to
offences against the person. The legal satisfactions which he suggests
are some of them extremely grotesque. Thus for an insult to a woman, the
man is to be dressed in a woman's clothes, and the retort to be
inflicted by the hand of a woman. But the principle indicated is a sound
one, that in offences against honour the punishment must be analogous to
the injury. Doubtless, if Bentham were now alive, he would allow that
the necessity for such a scheme of legislation had in a great measure
passed away. That duels have since become extinct is no doubt
principally owing to social changes, but it may be in part ascribed to
improvements in legal remedies in the sense which Bentham indicated. A
notable instance is Lord Campbell's Act of 1843, by which, in the case
of a newspaper libel, a public apology coupled with a pecuniary payment
is allowed to bar a plea. In the Indian Code there are special
enactments concerning duelling, which is punishable not as murder but as
homicide.
Suggestions have from time to time been made for the establishment of
courts of honour, but the need of such tribunals is doubtful, while the
objections to them are obvious. The present tendency of political
philosophy is to contract rather than extend the province of law, and
any interference with social life is justly resented. Real offences
against reputation are sufficiently punished, and the rule of the
lawyers, that mere scurrility or opprobrious words, which neither of
themselves import nor are attended with any hurtful effects, are not
punishable, seems on the whole a wise one. What in a higher rank is
looked upon as a gross insult may in a lower rank be regarded as a mere
pleasantry or a harmless joke. Among the lower orders offences against
honour can hardly be said to exist; the learned professions have each
its own tribunal to which its members are amenable; and the highest
ranks of society, however imperfect their standard of morality may be,
are perfectly competent to enforce that standard by means of social
penalties without resorting either to trial by law or trial by battle.
The duel, which in a barbarous age may be excused as "a sort of wild
justice," was condemned by Bacon as "a direct affront of law and tending
to the dissolution of magistracy." It survived in more civilized times
as a class distinction and as an ultimate court of appeal to punish
violations of the social code. In a democratic age and under a settled
government it is doomed to extinction. The military duels of the
European continent, and the so-called American duel, where the lot
decides which of the two parties shall end his life, are singular
survivals. For real offences against reputation law will provide a
sufficient remedy The learned professions will have each its own
tribunal to which its members are amenable. Social stigma is at once a
surer and a juster defence against conduct unworthy of a gentleman. Yet
the duel dies hard, and even to-day it is approved or palliated by some
notable publicists and professors in France and Germany. M.H. Marion
(_La Grande Encyclopedie_), in an article strongly condemnatory of
duels, still holds that the wrongdoer is bound to accept a challenge,
though he may not take the offensive, and further allows that obligatory
duels may be the only way of evoking a sense of honour and of
maintaining discipline in the army. Dr Paulsen goes much further, and
not only defends the duels of university students (_Mensuren_) as an
encouragement of physical exercise, a proof of courage and a protest of
worth against wealth, but maintains generally that the duel should be
retained as an expedient in those exceptional cases when a man cannot
bring himself to drag before a law court the outrage done to his
personal honour. But in such cases Dr Paulsen would have the courts hold
the injured person scathless, whether he be challenger or challenged,
and visit the aggressor with condign punishment.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Castillo, _Tractatus de duello_ (Turin, 1525); J.P.
Pigna, _Il Duello_ (1554); Muzio Girolamo, _Traite du duel_ (Venice,
1553): Boyssat, _Recherches sur les duels_ (Lyons, 1610); J. Savaron,
_Traite contre les duels_ (Paris, 1610); Brantome, _Memoire sur les
duels rodomontades_; F. Bacon, _Charge concerning Duels_, &c. (1614);
d'Audiguier, _Le Vray et ancien usage des duels_ (Paris, 1617); _His
Majesties Edict and severe Censure against private combats_ (London,
1618); Cockburn, _History of Duels_ (London, 1720); Brillat Savarin,
_Essai sur le duel_ (1819); Chateauvillard, _Essai sur le duel_
(1836); Colombey, _Histoire anecdotique du duel_ (Paris); Fourgeroux
de Champigneules, _Histoire des duels anciens et modernes_ (2 vols.,
Paris, 1835-1837); Millingen, _History of Duelling_ (London, 1841); L.
Sabine, _Notes on Duels_ (Boston, 1855); Steinmetz, _Romance of
Duelling_ (London, 1868). See also Eugene Cauchy, _Du duel_, &c.
(1846), a learned and philosophic treatise by a French lawyer; G.
Letainturier-Fradin, _Le Duel a travers les ages_ (Paris, 1892);
Mackay, _History of Popular Delusions, Duels and Ordeals_; and for a
valuable list of authorities, Buckle, _History of Civilization in
England_, ii. 137, note 71. For judicial combats see Gibbon, _Decline
and Fall_, ch. xxxviii. For courts of honour see _Armed Strength of
the German Empire_ (1876). For _Mensur_, see Paulsen, _The German
Universities_ (1906), ch. vi. (F. S.)