ESSAY ON DUE L L ING
13 O 7

•* •& 'º'º•&*-- ---------- - ------（ ** * * TT | <！--~~~,~~~~ ~~-----~ .*..….…, «ºº~º: *******- - -------- ------+------~- - ---~~~~）ąs----- ~~~~ ~ ~--------
•ť. ------- :~. . . ≤*~~~~ .. *•^--◄yaeș
~~~~“ ----------… • →~*~~~~ … . . .→----„… . .）--~~~~ · · · ·
ķ
ſà
*|-·■}
£
}||ğIIIIIIII?IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
||
. |Ëſſ!
·}№: 5=
·|№ſlē
•№， №.
{}EÐE
|-!E， E
--→E E
|Éłae
|Ëſºſ
*-№， №.
|…
į
}
• • • -ĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪſiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiſſiſ





* *2.…~ *
ESSAY ON DUELLING.
Nºw, Gee & Nuneas Grenville. \osven
AN
Cºgap on 3Butlling,
COMPOSED FOR.
THE BACHELORS' PRIZE,
GIVEN BY
THE CHANCELLO R.
OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF O XFORD,
In 1807.
E- wº-
mºnº
Printed by J. SEELEY, Buckingham.
G.R.
45 75
..?V9é
2 3,229 + -/70
º
Ea'eter College, May 25, 1807.
Dear Sir,
I beg leave to inform you we yesterday adjudged
the Prize for the best English Essay to the Composition which has
jor its Motto,
Ainpateſ; aoyxag. x. T. A.
and that upon opening his note, we found the name of Lord GEORGE
GRENv1LLE.-But it appearing that the Prize is restricted to
those who have erceeded four years from their matriculation, and
not completed seven, we were under the necessity of adjudging it to
the newt best Essay.
I am, Dear Sir,
Your faithful humble Servant,
H. RICHARDs, Vice Chancellor.
Rev. Mr. Hodson,
Brazenose College.
O.W. JDWELLIJWG.
Ka.0 avrov
Atxpatet; Aoyza; atma ayr exeroy
Koivou ('ayats gepo; apºpo.
Soph. Antig.
TO trace the origin, as well as to
discuss the merits, of any custom which has
been transmitted to us from antiquity, is an ob-
ject of the most laudable curiosity, and of the
most profitable research, to the inquirer into
human nature. Whilst thus employed, his at-
tention will perhaps be principally attracted by
three sources, from which practices of any ex-
tent, or of commanding influence, seem ge-
nerally to have taken their rise. Superstition,
B
9
the Obligations of a Superior, or, what is closely
connected with the cause last mentioned, the
Force of Public Opinion. The two first, when
they are really primary causes, and when they
do not emanate from the last, are rarely either
general in their operation, or permanent in their
effects. But the third, which is almost always
founded on Nature, and, generally at least, de-
rived from an experience of utility, is far more
j lasting J Connected indeed with this general
\} view, there is another circumstance worthy of
remark, that a practice will sometimes be still
found to remain when the situation of things
which recommended it as useful is no longer the
same. It is among customs of this kind that we
may class that of Duelling. For although its
having been enjoined by the written Codes of
many Nations might seem to make it a positive
institution of Feudal Law, and although its
resemblance. to Ordeal, and to other Sacred
3
Appeals, has induced many to refer it to the
Superstition of the middle Ages, we need only
consider the history of the Northern Nations to
give it a far earlier origin;–an origin indeed de-
rived from the untaught feelings of Nature
herself.
At that ruder aera of society, when the first
advances to civilization were made, by subjecting
human violence to human controul, it is perhaps
doubtful whether Man, wild and untutored,
would consider as an advantage that restraint
which in all probability was imposed on him by
the Craft* or the Power of another. His views of
* If we look to the earliest accounts of any settled form of
government, we shall generally find it established and main-
tained by the Force or Craft of some one individual, and falling
to the ground at his decease. Such we may also observe to be
the case among the savage tribes of North America, where
supreme power is never hereditary, but where one man is gene-
rally looked up to as being formidable in War, or still oftener as
4.
justice were bounded, his manners untamed, and
his passions undisciplined. Taught to look to his
own arm for support in Danger, and in injury
for redress, vigour and health were to him the
most valuable gifts that Nature could bestow.
To them every honour was paid, and, whilst they
remained unimpaired, he regarded Law but as
an Abridgement of Liberty,’ viewing her co-
ercion with jealousy, and her assistance with
contempt. Conscious of the higher interest
that was involved in his own cause, he was
disposed to constitute himself the only Judge,
and to consider it as a tacit confession of
wºrm--
being a Wizard or a Sorcerer. See also Hobbes's account of the
origin of Civil Government, in his Leviathan.
* “So did our noblemen, and gentlemen, in former ages in all
important occasions sue unto the King to approve themselves
by battell and publique combat. For as they dared not to
brave the Law, so did they disdain to submit themselves unto
the shameful revenge thereof.” Raleigh's History of the
World, p. 468.
5
weakness, either to be patient under injuries, or
to revenge them by the interference of others.
Viewed then in this light, and aided by the im-
passioned and warlike Spirit of the age, we
need not wonder at Revenge being, in that im-
perfect state of Society, deemed an honourable
principle. It is indeed a passion so congenial
to the feelings of Man, when unrefined by the
influence of civilization, that no cause of self re-
straint could then be imagined but a deficiency
of power or of courage, and when the arm of
Achilles was raised to avenge himself on the
haughty Agamemnon, Homer supposes nothing
less than the direct interposition of a Deity to be
a sufficient excuse for the subsequent forbearance
of his hero. Moral restraint being thus unac-
knowledged, and civil restraint perfectly un-
availing, the assistance of the Law, as an
avenging power, would not only of itself be
very feeble, but perhaps also would have been
C
6
considered as officious by the injured party him-
self;-and however evident might have been the
mischief arising from so constant a system of
feud and violence, no disgrace would attach to
the indulgence of the passion. Nor does this
idea seem to have confined itself to those periods
exclusively when the arm of corrective Justice
was weak, or to those countries where the Man-
ners were rude and the Arts unknown. In the
territories of * Japan, and in many of the other
more enlightened nations, we may observe, even
at these periods, a spirit of revenge acting with
unresisted sway, whilst, in the Feudal times, we
scarcely see it any where actually prohibited by
Law, excepting in those states the smallness of
-ms
* When injured the Japanese are indeed quite implacable.
As they are haughty and intrepid so are they resentful and un-
forgiving. They do not shew their hatred by violence or
warmth, but with inconceivable sang froid wait with patience
for an opportunity of revenge.”—Thunberg's Travels. *
7
whose population could not afford to lose a sin-
gle member. From the licence thus given to
vindicate their own wrongs, may be fraced the
origin and the efficacy of an institution, the ne-
cessity of which, although it may, in the first
instance, be suspected as the offspring of popular
superstition, will, upon nearer consideration, and
under such a combination of circumstances, ap-
pear evident. I mean that of Sanctuary. It was
not indeed employed in punishing crimes, for to
that the resentment of the person aggrieved was
tolerated to a degree that was more than equal,
or if the aggression were of a nature to extin-
guish such resentment, the feelings of his sur-
viving friends were likely to assume a more ani-
mated tone of vengeance ;-it was employed
therefore in the only office that remained for it,
in curbing the vengeance which pursued the
offender ;-and, in truth, if the Fugitive could
not have sheltered himself from his pursuer, and
8
the institution had not been authorized to ex-
tend protection, until the one had obtained
redress, and the other had made atonement, the
Sanctuary might have exhibited the Philosophical
Analogy of Aristotle, and have answered every
purpose of civil, and of criminal, Justice. It is
again to this contemplation of the subject that
we are to refer the concurrence of public opinion
in the principle of Lex Talionis, a principle in-
deed which, when so restricted and modified,
induced the same philosopher to allow that reta-
liation* was no inadequate measure of Justice.
The difficulty however of its execution with
respect to some injuries, and the absurdity of
its application with respect to others, will, with-
out adducing particular instances be readily ad-
mitted;—and, accordingly, in proportion as the
* Wide Arist. Ethic. Nicom. 5, Cap. 8.
9
Laws themselves acquired more force, and the
National Spirit of each Country was more
formed, we see new codes enacted, all perhaps
arising from the principle last mentioned, and all
alike tending to methodize and restrict the inflic-
tion of punishment by individuals. In the
warmer climates of Asia, of Africa, and of
Southern Europe, violent in his passions, and
immediate in his resentment, the fiery Chieftain
too often forgot every dictate both of true
courage, and of generous hostility, and, whilst
his rage was gratified by the life of his adversary,
he cared but little how that life had been de-
stroyed. To one race however in the north of
Europe was it reserved at an early period to
limit this system of treachery and of blood, and
to affix disgrace to any violence whose terms
Were not equal, and whose exercise was not
public. The manly habits, and the exalted
spirit, of the Gothic Nations considered the
D
10
attempt to take any secret advantage over an
enemy as a proof of weakness or of Cowardice,
and for this extraordinary forbearance, extraor-
dinary indeed when compared with the manners
of other barbarians, they found themselves well
repaid by their superior courage, and by their
greater renown in War. Long before the rules
of Combat were prescribed by the Legislature,
the same gallantry, the same courtesy, and al-
most the same forms prevailed, and however
strongly we may feel and lament the many ill
effects which must have attended so general a
system of internal warfare, we cannot but behold
with satisfaction the Sword or the Lance take
place of the Poison, or the Stiletto. As the
offspring therefore of this more honourable feel-
ing we may consider the Trial by Duel.
To illustrate its purpose, and to point out its
utility, in the times in which it was designed to
11
act, little may be necessary but to recur to the
existing state of society. We then may be led
to consider it, not as the sanguinary instrument
of private pique, not as the hasty determination
of petulance or ferocity, but as the one resource
to the brave man from disgrace, from oppres-
sion, or from injury. Thus also, and in this
light, was it introduced as a branch of National
Law, nor is it matter of surprize, that, by men
who felt its power, and who witnessed its bene-
ficial influence, such an appeal should be held as
sacred.
Nor did that influence as a Judicial Form
terminate with the times of Chivalry, or even
with those immediately subsequent to them.
As it was gradual in its rise, so also was it in its
decline, nor may it be foreign to our purpose
to mark the progress of its discontinuance. At
the close of the sixteenth, or the early part of
19
the seventeenth century, may we first observe it
becoming an object of * ridicule and of attack
to the writers of the times. Alarmed indeed
by some late and glaring + instances of a spirit
of ferocity among the Nobles, and seeing the en-
creasing efficacy of other provisions of justice, the
separate governments of Europe began about
this time to withdraw their sanction from its
exercise. Nor does the sense of society in
general seem to have been much averse to its
abolition. Wearied with the constant succession
* See Act V, Scene IV, of Shakespeare’s “As you like it.”
As also Ben Jonson’s “Every Man in his Humour,”—Fletcher's
“Queen of Corinth,”—&c. &c.
f The duel between Monsieur de Jarnac and La Chataigneraie
in France, and between the Lord Bruce and Sir Edward Sack-
ville, with many others equally fatal and sanguinary, seem to
have contributed much to the discouragement of Duelling.
In the small republic of Iceland, too, we see it forbidden from a
fatal duel between two chiefs, Gonlag and Raven.—See Notes
on Mr. Herbert's Icelandic Poetry.
13
of disquietudes to which he had been exposed,
and finding the law in some measure relieve him
from the burthen of contesting his own rights,
the subject would at first gladly forego a trial
where his life was in equal danger with the cause
he maintained.
But though the necessity of duel had thus
come to an end, it is not thence to be inferred
that the Principle was entirely destroyed. Long
subsequent to these periods we find *Bishop Hall
very slightly blaming the challenger, and the
judicious and amiable Selden unreservedly de-
fending both parties. In following however the
protracted influence of the Principle itself, we
shall. I fear discover a wide distinction between
the fair and manly practice which we have hi-
* See Bishop Hall's Sermon on David and Goliah, and the
article “ Duel” in Selden’s Table Talk. &
E
14
therto found to prevail, and that degenerate
relick of it which disgraces the present day.
In order to ascertain then the nature and the
effects of that romantic spirit now termed Ho-
nour, we must first define what it is, from what
source it takes its rise, and what end it tends to
promote. As a verbal definition however from
those who reprobate the appeal will never be ac-
ceded to by those who support it, it may be well
to animadvert merely upon its positive and ne-
gative defects. Upon what it does, and upon
what it does not. As a medium for punishing
vice, or for restricting violence, the examples that
are constantly presenting themselves prove its
insufficiency. The very essence of duel, as an
appeal, consisting in the perfect equality of
chance, as to the event, evinces its absurdity as
a punishment, because to that chance the ag-
gressor and the aggressed are alike exposed. As
a restriction too it acts with very little, if any,
more force. Nor can it well be otherwise. For,
be that influence what it may, it can never adapt
itself to every peculiarity of temper, and every
variety of exigence. It cannot prevent every
sally of caprice, and every lapse of inadvertence,
on the one part, nor can it stifle the irresistible
propensity to resentment on the other. But in
fact it is not usually resorted to as either a punish-
ment or as a restraint. By a pernicious and an
'impious custom then it has grown up in society
to be a test of personal courage to which any
man may be liable to be summoned. In violation
of every rule either of civil policy or of moral
restraint, nay in defiance of Religion itself, it has
been agreed that an injury, be it real or imagin-
ary, can be washed away only by blood;—for
whilst the despotism of public opinion thus im-
molates its victim, it busies not itself in discrimi-
nating between the innocent and the guilty.
16
Dismissing however, for the present, any inves-
tigation as to either the religious or moral senses
in which it is to be reprobated, the view we may
place it in as a crime against Society may be suf-
ficiently convincing. Every extensive principle
of action, which rejects the interference of the
Legislature, may be fairly considered as at least
weakening that Legislature itself. The necessity
of the form of Judicial combat, whilst in force,
was evident. Acting in many cases almost as a
substitute for Legal Authority, or, at least, always
as a most powerful auxiliary to it, its effect in
promoting a martial spirit in the nobility, and
again in tempering that spirit by courtesy, was
found most beneficial. But when we compare it
with the form it has now assumed, which instead
of being authorized, and indeed enjoined, by Law,
we see acting as it were by stealth, the distinc-
tion will appear most evident. We observe the
one, whilst the constitution of the country was
17
yet in its infancy, imposing as it were a Law
upon the passions, and the resentment of indi-
viduals, by regulating their operation when
brought into action. We see it, when a private
Person has received an injury, depriving the
great man, who may have injured him, of
the assistance of his vassals, and placing him
singly, face to face, with the man he has oppressed.
And, lastly, we see it put into execution, in a
manner so public, that the breath of detraction
could never accuse it of unfairness. But in
viewing the other, we see it in an age when the
dominion of Law is absolute, and its provisions
ample and comprehensive, too often enabling
that man to maintain the shadow of honour, who
has long since lost the reality, or exciting the
man of established character to stake his life
against one who has no character to lose. Nor
again can it even be defended as either a fair or
a public Trial of Right. Public it can never be,
F
18
as it is no longer upheld or allowed by Law, and,
to prove the frequent inequality of the terms of
combat, the consideration of a moment may be
sufficient.
In the age of Chivalry, when in this country,
as in most others, each individual was in some de-
gree a soldier, when every idea of Fame or of En-
terprize was confined to the Profession of Arms,
every man might deem his chance in an appeal
to the Sword as good as that of his Adversary, or,
in a case of evident inequality, was at liberty to
decide his quarrel by Champion.
/
2'
!/
Seeing however, as we daily may, under our
present forms, the imbecility of Age matched
against the vigor of Youth, or the Man unused to
arms hurried by a Tyrant custom to decide his
right against one to whom practices of this kind
are familiar; under these circumstances we never
19
can pronounce the duel either Useful as to its In-
stitution, Public as to its Exercise, or Equal as to
its Event.
In considering too its effect in a Military Soci-
ety, where, from its Nature, the Point of Honour
must be most strictly preserved, and in which
the reputation of courage is most essential, this
Principle may be found more obnoxious than per-
haps in any other whatsoever. An appeal to
Single Combat being once admitted must of itself
undermine every feeling of unanimity, and every
rule of discipline. Nor is this argument unsup-
ported either by the precept or the example of
those to whom the profession of arms is indebted
for its structure and its reputation. If for in-
stances we recur to the military history of Europe
at those periods when perhaps the spirit and the
honourable pride of the soldier was most studi-
ously and most effectually maintained, the prac-
Q0
tice of Düelling will be found, not only to have
been under all Limitation forbidden, but even to
have been considered unmanly and disgraceful.
It may indeed be almost universally observed,
that, in proportion as the temper of a nation
grows more warlike, and the opportunities for
the display of real firmness consequently more
obvious, private quarrels less frequently terminate
in blood. It is not however in the soldier that
we see this misguided and destructive notion to
have most generally prevailed. The Man, who,
for his Country, has often faced death with gal-
lantry in the field, will learn that he injures that
Country when he either risques his own life for
private revenge, or when, from the same motive,
he attempts to destroy that of his Fellow Soldier.
Of this feeling we are not without even contem-
porary instances. Of two * perhaps the most
—w--
* Suwaroff and Bagrathion are each said to have received a
blow from an inferior Officer without resenting it.
21
intrepid and the most successful commanders
who have checked the common enemy of
Europe in his career, it is said that they have
each been known to submit to insult with a for-
bearance almost bordering upon meanness. It
is not therefore to Men of approved firmness, or
of genuine honor that we must look for the
more extensive exercise of this principle. By a
class of men far different has it been for the
most part supported. To the ruined Gamester,
indeed,—to him who has no other recommenda-
tion in Society but Courage, and whose Courage
has no other field for display but private quarrel,
Duel may present some advantages. The former
can but lose a life which he has not the IIleanS
to support, and the latter, if he cannot procure
respect, may at least be regarded with fear.
As to the religious point of view in which this
practice may be reprobated, it may be almost
. - G .
99
superfluous to produce an argument. On that
ground in truth its defence is never attempted.
The Duellist may endeavour to excuse, but never
to justify, his principles.
As a proceeding under a moral and a civilized
government, we may fairly then pronounce it
unwarrantable. Nor do the possible cases under
which such an appeal may be extenuated at all
tend to disprove the assertion. That such cases
in fact do exist we may without inconsistency
allow.
As a redress for some injuries, or as a refuge
from some evils, against which the Law can
neither protect nor avenge us, the existence of
Duelling, and its practice, although we cannot
vindicate to reason or morality I fear we should
be strongly inclined to pardon if not to excuse.
When we see a wretch bending under the accu-
23
mulated load of infamy and insult, when we see
him lost to the world if it be not removed, and
unable to remove it but by an appeal against
which the justice of his country, and the for-
bearance of his Religion equally protest, it might
be difficult for us to withhold from him our
compassion, although he should act in direct op-
position to both. It is not perhaps where the
social charities of life are most violently at-
tacked, it is not to revenge an injury done to
our feelings in the person of one most dear to
them, it is not when every tongue takes part
against the aggressor, and when the sufferer is
at least certain of sympathy, that he is most
tempted to have recourse to these means of ven-
geance. Other instances, perhaps stronger,
exist, where even pity or approbation is denied
to the injured, and where his character is for
ever blasted if his cause be left unavenged. On
cases of this kind, however, we cannot reason;–
24
every precept of Philosophy is vain, and the
strictest sense of Religion itself seems almost to
shrink from the trial. Nor against a mind thus
tortured can penal codes have any force. Infamy
is already its portion, and Death, from the nature
of the appeal it has chosen, it must despise.
To prevent then those passions, which, of
themselves, human laws cannot controul, some
gentler, and, at the same time, more efficient
means seem necessary;-nor are those means
perhaps beyond our reach. By a gradual change
of manners, by the influence of education, and,
most of all, by early principles of Religion, the
mind even of him who sinks under calumny and
reproach may be taught to look up to another tri-
bunal, whose decisions are impartial, and whose
Laws are inviolate. We are the more encou-
raged too in this hope, by remarking how evi-
dently the progress of civilization in society has
25
hitherto tended to diminish the number of these
appeaks themselves. It is indeed flatural to sup-
pose, that, as the manners must always in some
degree keep pace with the Arts in their advance-
ment, the circumstances under which the Duel is
usually palliated should less frequently occur.
Thus then this practice, if we consider it in
any degree restricting the more violent and sud-
den action of the passions, seems gradually to
be hastening its own close; and the Man, who
now sees with horror the lives of his fellow-
creatures sometimes sacrificed to a mistaken no-
tion, may look forward with satisfaction to a
period when the defender of Duel may no longer
see its utility. *
In the mean while, we may safely establish to
ourselves this maxim, That the Christian's best
H
26.
Rule of Action are the Dictates of his Religion,
and the Englishman's best Standard of Appeal,
the Laws of his Country.
GEORGE GREN VILLE,
BRAZENOSE COLLEGE, 1807.
Printed by J. Seeley, Buckingham.
D0 NOT REMOVE
0R
MUTILATE CARD
< . . .
*** - -, - ~~~. ºr ~~...~.
*****----------- ~~~~~...~~...~. - . ~~...~.








aº （, ;-&
*** * * , ， ， ，
°F|！·
... * * **** • • • •»， «»） ： « …ºg æ-sze،-→- |-·-ſº: ， * ;... * * * * * * …;&&
-：، ،• ！ae« … . . ≤
-----~--~：ſººſ}% ） ，~--~· -º --· ··ºº: º ：‘ “ ’ .*****************× ：-）:-：！};&****************';- * * · * *******-*= *.*. &&*）'）;