---------
|
tº º
º
------------
|
№
|-
|-
|
|-
|-
|-
|-
|-

|||||||||||||||

o, R
& S (19
, S | 2.
sº 5.
ON
D U E L S AND DUE L L IN G,
ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED,
witH A
PRELIMINARY HISTORICAL ESSAY.
By LORENZO SABINE.
*
B O S T ON: s—º
- CRosBY, NICHOLs, AND COMPANY, -
Ill WASHINGTON STREET.
1855.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
L O R E N Z O S A B I N E ,
in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
- - O A. M. B. R. I D G E :
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY METGALF AND CowPANY.
*--
^
.
s
/
PIR. E. F. A. C. E.
THIS page — the last to be written — is the author’s own.
Here he may speak to his reader without restraint, and, if he
will, as to a friend. The writer, in availing himself of the privi-
lege accorded to all, would remark, in the first place, that who-
ever opens this volume in the expectation of finding mention of
every challenge given and of every duel fought, in the United
States or elsewhere, will be disappointed. The work, in its
claims as a record, is sufficiently moderate. - .
Bred to active business, and employed nearly the whole of his
life in commercial or kindred pursuits, the author’s leisure hours
only have been devoted to books." In order to make the most of
these hours, the plan of taking and filing away for use, as occa-
sion might admit, memoranda of incidents and facts of interest,
was adopted in early youth, and has been continued until the
present moment. These NoTEs are, then, simply the results of
common and every-day reading, observation, and conversation,
for a series of years, in this particular direction.
As, in preparing the “American Loyalists” for the press, the
author was cheered in seasons of discouragement by the reflec-
tion, that his labors would at least diminish the hate which had
existed for two generations between the inhabitants of the British
Colonies and those of his native country, - between the losers
and the winners in the Revolutionary strife, and their children,
— and thus hasten the period of a peaceful and permanent

iv PREFACE.
union : so now, he would humbly cherish the belief that the
influence of these tales of blood and crime will be to lessen the
number of single combats between persons who may rightfully
claim the appellation of gentlemen, and so do something to ad-
vance the great cause of human brotherhood. +.
The account of a single hostile meeting, however sad the
details, seldom leaves a deep and lasting impression: but, unless
the author much mistakes the nature of the human mind, the
effect — upon the votaries of the duello — of the reading at one
time, and in course, of several hundred challenges and duels,
which embrace accounts of almost every imaginable form of
injury and affront, and of almost every possible variety of result
to the parties and to their friends and families, must be far dif.
ferent. Certain it is, that, but for this thought, the task now
completed would never have been undertaken.
There are many in New England who will object, because
terms of unconditional, indiscriminate condemnation of the duel-
list have been withheld. With all respect, be it so. Yet let it
be said in reply, that the sympathy manifested in these pages
is in no case for the crime, but always for the unhappy social
position of the duellist. Most persons, it is apprehended, who
calmly consider the subject as it actually is, will assent to and
fully appreciate the duellist's plea ; namely, that, if wronged or
insulted, he is required to choose between a violation of human
and divine laws on the one hand, and the loss of his place in so-
ciety on the other; and that of consequence, and do what he
may, he falls a helpless sacrifice. While, then, there is a grave
sin to condemn, there is also a feeling of commiseration to in-
dulge. \ !
During my investigations, I have been convinced of the
entire justice of the remark of the great British novelist of mod-
ern times, that “few successful duellists (if the word successful
can be applied to a superiority so fatal) have beheld their dead
antagonist stretched on the earth at their feet, without wishing
they could redeem with their own blood that which it has been

PREFACE. - V
their fate to spill.” The scene in the Monastery, between Sir
Piercie Shafton and Halbert Glendinning, — where the passage
above cited occurs, – is drawn from real life : and this volume
contains more than one instance in which the fallen duellist liter-
ally tendered his unharmed adversary his purse, and counselled
him to fly and save himself; in which the latter “tore his hair
for very sorrow, as he looked on the pale countenance of his
victim’’; and in which he exclaimed, in vain penitence, like Hal-
bert, “Why did I provoke him. to an issue so fatal! Would to
God I had submitted to the worst insult man could receive from
man, rather than be the bloody instrument of this bloody deed.”
Such are the general reasons that have induced the author,
except in particular cases, to spare the individual man ; but to
spare him only that the Public Opinion, the Fashion around
him and enslaving him, and which, inexorable in their demands,
impose upon him, alternatives so appallingly cruel, so utterly
unworthy of the civilization of the age, might be assailed with
the greater force. -
Again: the author, during his researches, has been much im-
pressed with the fact that most duels grow out of trifles; or, as
Scott states it, out of “the taking of the wall, or the gentle rub of
the shoulder in passing each other, or a hasty word, or a mis-
conceived gesture.” And the reader of these Notes will find
ample illustrations of the sentiment of Sir Henry Lee, – that in-
veterate quoter of Shakespeare, and stout old adherent of the
Stuarts, in Woodstock, - that “ The mother of mischief is no
bigger than a gnat's wing; and I have known fifty instances in
my own day, when, as Will says, - .
‘Gallants have been confronted hardily
In single opposition, hand to hand,’
in which, after the field was fought, no one could remember the
cause of quarrel.”
To assume, as may be done without violence to the general
truth, that a large proportion of the cartels are given for trivial

Vl - PREFACE.
causes, and to assume, also, that REMORSE is wellnigh the uni-
versal companion of the “successful” duellist, may not gentle-
men in duelling communities be kindly asked, Whether the
Code of HonoR ought not now to be abolished 2 In view of
the latter proposition especially, may they not be gently remind-
ed—ere resolving to appeal to the pistol — of the long roll of
those, who, once the pride and hope of the country, went to
untimely graves, and of those who, “successful” enough to sur-
vive, lived on with wan and haggard face, seeming to say to all
observers: “BE waRNED !” We
“Eat our meal in fear, and sleep
In the affliction of these terrible dreams
That shake us nightly.”
One word more. Entire accuracy, in a work of this descrip-
tion, is not perhaps possible, and for reasons which every stu-
dent of history will understand without explanation. Yet it may
be proper to observe, that, as authorities often differ, and some-
times, indeed, absolutely contradict one another in material cir-
cumstances, the writer has been compelled in several cases to
select the account which appeared the most probable, and in
others, to omit every detail beyond the simple facts of a hostile
meeting and its result to the parties. The assurance needs only
to be added, that he has designed to arrive at the truth, and to
state it in all singleness of purpose. -
Framingham, November, 1854.
Aº
C O N T E N T S.
H IS TO RIC A. L E S S A. Y.
->
CHAPTER I.
Judicial Duel, or Wager of Battle.— General Remarks. – France.—
England . g ſº gº
CHLAPTER II.
Duelling. — Antiquity. — France. — Great Britain. — United States.—
Sweden.— Germany.—Prussia. —Naples.— Malta
CHAPTER III.
Tournament, or Mock Duel. — Joust. — Championship of England. —
Prize Fight. — Boxing . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER IV.
Challenges and Duels of Kings, Generals, Naval Commanders, and
Enights. – Duelling in the Church ; – among Authors, Artists,
and Women e ſº © & . . . ſº
CHAPTER V.
“,
Weapons and Rules . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER VI.
Trivial Causes of Duels. – Disgraceful and Ridiculous Duels
^
PAGE
I
15
25
29
35

viii - CONTENTS.
;
CHAPTER VII.
Opinions of Eminent Men. — Public Sentiment . . . . . 38
CHAPTER VIII.
Reflections on the Eve of a Duel. — Sin and Absurdity of Duelling.—
Remorse of Duellists e Q e te ſº tº tº © . 45
CHALLENGES AND DUELS . . . . . . . 49
ADDENDA © e & ſe º tº ſº wº & © . 31 7
APPEND IX.
No. I. Efforts of General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to suppress
Duelling & º ſº te tº tº ſº & & tº
No. II. Sentiments of the Hon. Robert Barnwell Rhett, late Senator
in Congress from South Carolina, on the Subject of Duelling . 326
321
No. III. Sentiments of Eliphalet Nott, D.D., on Duelling . e 330
No. IV. The Law of England relative to Challenges and Duels . \ 337
No. V. Extract from the Spectator, No. 99 . . tº º ſe 340
No. VI. From the Tatler . e * wº e • • . 341 .
No. VII. Extracts from the Spectator . . . . . . 348
No. VIII. From the Guardian, . º tº tº e & . . . 354
No. IX. Ridiculous Quarrels . & g g e tº tº, te 355
No. X. Death of Hon. Jonathan Cilley . . . . . . 359
No. XI. Duelling in the District of Columbia . . . . 363
No. XII. Judge Pirtle on Duelling . . . . . . . . 371
No. XIII. Duelling Customs . . . . . . . . 371
No. XIV. The Sword-Players of the Last Century . o . . 372
No. XV. The Duellist . g ë fº gº tº e g g 376
No. XVI. Trifles to amuse, and yet with a Lesson . . & . . 379
No. XVII. Duelling: a Tale of Woe . . . . . . 384
à
A
-|
HISTORICAL ESSAY.
<-- " - ** --- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - --—----------.
C H A P T E R [.
JUDICIAL DUEL, OR WAGER OF BATTLE. — GENERAL REMARKS.—
FRANCE. – ENGLAND. ..
THIS form of combat is of great antiquity. It was authorized,
says Blackstone, in the laws of Gundebald, A. D. 501, which are
preserved in the Burgundian code. It was founded on the pre-
sumption that a brave man did not deserve to suffer, and that a
coward did not deserve to live. Confined at first to some tribes
of Germany, it was established, finally, in all the monarchies of
Europe. The appeal was directly to God, in the unfaltering
faith that he would protect the party whose quarrel was just.
If the person accused was victorious, he was acquitted as inno-
cent; if he was defeated, he was pronounced guilty, and sub-
jected to the punishment prescribed by law for his offence. If
the accuser was vanquished, he was liable to the penalties that
would have fallen upon the accused. In civil cases, also, this
combat was the common arbiter between disputants to landed
estates, and the various kinds of personal property; and even in
suits commenced before the tribunals, a party dissatisfied with
the proceedings might throw down his glove and challenge a
judge to defend himself in the field. Several descriptions of
persons were, however, exempted from the necessity of entering
the lists to maintain their innocence, or to protect their property,
and among them were women, ecclesiastics, young men under
twenty and old men above sixty years of age, and men who
were sick, infirm, or maimed; but all these could employ cham-
pions to fight in their vindication. Such are the general out-
lines of the judicial duel, as it existed in Europe for a consider-
able period. Essential modifications were made from age to

2 JUDICIAL DUEL.
age, until at last it was limited in most nations to accusations of
a criminal nature, and in some, to those which were punished
with death.
The forms of preparation, and the combat itself, were solemn
and imposing. No person, whatever was his wrong, could take
vengeance in his own right, and during his first emotions of an-
ger, as in the modern duel. There were judges, or other magis-
trates, before whom the injured party was required to relate his
injuries, and of whom he was compelled to ask permission to
prove, in duel, that his accusation was true. The accused was
summoned before the same functionaries, and made answer to
the charges preferred against him ; and days, and even months,
elapsed before the judges pronounced an opinion. Meantime,
ecclesiastics and friends were commonly employed to persuade
the parties to adjust their difficulty without a conflict. Overtures
of reconciliation failing, and the accuser and the accused swear-
ing to the truth of their original statements, they were conducted
to a spot appointed, and allowed to try the issue between them
in mortal strife.
. In theory, as will be seen, the combatants always fought in a
just cause. But it could not have been so in fact, nor was it so
in many cases, even in the belief of the parties themselves, and
those who in passion, or from unworthy motives, took up an
unrighteous quarrel, resorted to various expedients to relieve
their consciences, and to put themselves in the right. These
evasive shifts are well illustrated in the story of a knight who
entered the lists upon a case which he knew was wrong, and
who, to change the issue, fled at the first onset. “Turn, cow-
ard l’” exclaimed his antagonist. “Thou liest !” retorted the
knight: “coward I am none, and in this quarrel will I fight to
the death ; but my first cause of combat was unjust, and I
abandon it.” *
Under such an institution, duels upon mere points of honor,
and in which gentlemen defended their words and acts with
their swords, were sure to follow : and it is historically true, –
I am led to conclude, – that modern Duelling had its origin in
the Wager of Battle.
FRANCE.
As in England, the Judicial Duel was, at one period, the uni.
versal umpire in disputes between individual subjects. All
FRANCE. – ENGLAND. ..” 3
cases, whether civil or criminal, were submitted to its decision,
and the proceedings were conducted gravely, and in accordance
with established rules. Parties were finally allowed, as else-
where in Europe, to fight by champion, both to secure the rights
of the aged and infirm, and to prévent the frequent risk of life
by persons of rank. Thus sons often fought in the disputes of
fathers, and nobles or gentlemen appeared in the lists in behalf
of their sovereigns. A memorable instance of the latter occurred
about the close of the twelfth century. A French champion
went over to England to fight any one who should assert that
Philip, king of France, had done wrong to King John, but fled
ingloriously when confronted by his adversary ; and, not daring
to return to his native country after such proof of his cowardice,
took shelter in Spain. The last case of judicial combat in France,
authorized by the magistrates, was in the year 1547, between
M. Jarnac and M. de la Chestaignervie. -
- ENGLAND.
The Anglo-Saxons, according to some writers, “allowed an
appeal to the judgment of God’” by single combat; but others
state that the Judicial Duel, or Wager of Battle, was unknown in
England until the Norman Conquest, when it soon became a reg-
ular part of the jurisprudence of the country, and was regulated
by certain fixed and solemn forms. v. t
Henry the Second disliked the custom, and though he did not
venture to abolish it in criminal cases, he still introduced a change
which gave the right to either party in civil actions to choose
between it and a trial by grand assize or jury. In the reign of
John the judicial duel was revived; and that monarch kept a
number of bravos to determine his disputes with his barons. In
the time of Edward the Third this mode of adjusting controver-
sies had attained its original influence over the public mind, and
was generally preferred to any other form of judicial procedure.
But it became obsolete in the reign of Elizabeth. The last
trial, in 1571, was a mere sham. Upon a dispute relative to the
title to some manorial lands, the defendant claimed to maintain
his possession by duel. The adverse party accepted the chal-
lenge, and the ordinary arrangements were made ; but the
Queen, to avoid bloodshed, procured a settlement between the
disputants, permitting a mock eombat only, in observance of the
formalities of the law. There was a memorable attempt to ap-

4 JUDICIAL DUEL.
; .
peal to the Wager of Battle in the year 1699, upon the acquittal
of Spencer Cowper (brother of Lord Cowper), who was charged
with the murder of Sarah Stout. Her heir at law moved to set
the verdict aside, and after various solemn hearings the motion
was allowed ; but the proceedings were finally quashed in con-
sequence of informality, and the law officers, disinclined to allow
the first writ, refused to issue another; and the matter was thus
quietly disposed of without a combat.
Strangely enough, we hear of the judicial duel in connection
with the controversies which preceded and caused the American
Revolution. The bill introduced into Parliament in 1774 for the
improved “administration of justice in the Province of Massa-
chusetts Bay,” disallowed or abrogated the duel in cases of mur-
der; and Dunning, Burke, and others, in their opposition to the
measure, commented upon this clause of the bill with severity.
The former was much displeased. “I rise,” he said, “to sup-
port the great pillar of the constitution, the appeal for murder;
tº E tº tº e it is called a remnant of barbarism and Gothicism ; the
whole of our constitution, for aught I know, is Gothic.” And
remarked Burke : “This is a part of a system of jurisprudence
which ought to be viewed as a whole.” The ministry allowed the
obnoxious clause to be stricken out, with an understanding that
the subject should be considered in a general law at an early
dav. -
i. 1818 we hear again of the judicial duel in England. Wil-
liam Ashford accused Abraham Thornton of the murder of his
sister. Thornton threw down his glove, according to ancient
custom, and claimed to disprove his innocence by combat. A
case so remarkable in the nineteenth century attracted universal
attention, and in due time it was carried before Lord Chief Jus-
tice Ellenborough, and the other judges of the highest tribunal of
the realm, for decision. At the hearing, the judges were in their
robes, the lawyers in their gowns and wigs. The court affirmed
Thornton's right; but Ashford was a boy, and declined the chal-
lenge. The year following (1819) the WAGER of BATTLE was
abolished by an act of Parliament. V

DUELLING AMONG NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY. 5
C H A P T E R II.
DUELLING. — ANTIQUITY. — FRANCE. — GREAT BRITAIN. — UNITED
STATES. — Swed EN.— GERMANY. — PRUSSIA. — NAPLES. — MALTA.
DUELLING AMONG NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY.
IN the course of my reading I have often met the remark that
duels were unknown in Greece and Rome, and, indeed, in any
nation of antiquity. If a duel be “a combat between two,” and
if a duellist be “a single combatant,” then the writers who make
the statement are mistaken, since the practice of adjusting public
and private quarrels by single combat has prevailed in every age
and among every people. -
The meeting between David and Goliath, as recorded in sacred
history; the mortal strife between Jonathan and Pudens, men-
tioned by Josephus; the many combats of Homer's heroes ;
the memorable combat between the three Horatii and the three
Curiatii; the combats between Artebarus, the noble Roman,
and the barbarian, and of Sloza with his antagonist, — were all
duels; and show conclusively that duelling was not unknown to
the Hebrews and to the people of the ancient republics. Among
the Arabs traces of the custom are to be found as early as the
middle of the seventh century, when Ali, son-in-law of Moham-
med, and one of his successors, challenged Moawiyah “to
appeal to the decision of God,” and in a duel to end their dis-
UrteS.
Duelling in Europe was introduced by the nations of the North,
and soon became universal. But it is said that no instance oc-
curred for the redress of private wrongs, or for the gratification,
of private hate, prior to the year 1528, and to the celebrated
cartel of Francis the First of France to the Emperor Charles
the Fifth. Such, however, is not the fact. Previous to this chal-
lenge duels were fought by individuals, and for causes not recog-
nized or allowed under the system of judicial combat which
formed a part of the jurisprudence of the time. That the course
of the two monarchs gave a sanction to the duello, and that their
example induced gentlemen of rank, upon affronts and injuries,
to resort to the sword more than ever before, is undoubtedly true;
and it may be admitted, also, that modern duelling, as far as it

1 * -
6 DUELLING.
relates to mortal combat upon a mere point of honor, dates from
this period.
FRANCE.
Duels for private injuries became common after the cartel of
defiance of Francis the First of France to his rival, the Emperor
Charles the Fifth, in 1528. From that period every man of
rank thought himself entitled to draw his sword for every affront
which seemed to touch his honor. A look of disdain, a word
of disrespect or slight, a haughty step, sufficed to provoke a
challenge.
In 1547, Henry the Second gave permission to two noblemen,
who had been intimate friends, and who became imvolved in a
quarrel in a matter of gallantry, to adjust their difference in a
duel, and in his presence. One of the nobles fell dangerously
wounded, and the victor desired the king to accept the life of
the vanquished at his hands. Henry complied, but the wounded
and defeated noble, who was a great favorite of the monarch,
died of shame and grief at his discomfiture soon afterwards.
Henry was so deeply moved at the result of the affyir, as to
prohibit, with an oath, any further practice of the duel in his
dominions, while he should occupy the throne.
Whatever the success of the edict for the moment, the sword
was soon the universal arbiter. In the time of Henry the Fourth
duelling was carried to an extent which appears actually incredi-
ble. No less than four thousand French gentlemen were slain
in ten years, upon the very lowest computation ; and some writ-
ers state the number of victims at two thousand more. Paris
swarmed with professed duellists, who gloried in their exploits,
and counted up their killed with the same exultation that a sports-
man counts his game. In fine, war itself could hardly have
swept off more of the privileged classes than fell in private and
frivolous quarrels. Beside the number slain, it is said that four-
teen thousand who survived the combats in which they were
engaged received the royal pardon, during the reign of Henry
and his immediate successor. The combats were generally on
* ~ * . .
Sunday morning; and four, six, and ten young nobles would
often engage on a side, and fight until most, seconds as well as
principals, were mortally wounded or disabled ; and simply be-
, cause a mistress had been offended, some obeisance had been
forgotten, or some glance had been construed into contempt.

FRANCE. 7
“All France went mad upon the duel.” Attempts to suppress
it were ineffectual. The edicts of popes, bishops, and of civil
functionaries, were alike unheeded. At last, says Lord Herbert,
the English ambassador, “there was scarcely any Frenchman,
deemed worth looking on, who had not slain his man.”
In time, the fashion changed and the mania abated ; but
France has maintained a reputation for personal combat until
the present moment. During the political revolutions of the
closing part of the last century duels were frequent. The re-
mark is true of the political changes of 1830, and of those of
subsequent dates. So, too, the sword and pistol, were freely
used (1831) by those who assailed, and those who defended, the
honor of the Duchesse de Berri.
Quarrels and hostile meetings between members of the legis-
lative assembly, since 1849, have been numérous ; while the
fashionable young men of Paris have continued to fight about
their mistresses with great bravery, and to the delight of their
respective companions of the café and hotel.
A brief record of the measures to suppress duelling remains.
The edict of Henry the Second has been mentioned. Henry
the Fourth ordained punishments to all persons who should in
any way be concerned, whether as principals or seconds, or as
carriers of challenges or of provoking and offensive messages,
or as spectators without endeavoring to prevent the effusion of
blood; meting out confiscation of estate, loss or suspension of
official employments, fines, imprisonment, degradation of rank,
and even death, according to the guilt of each one who should
engage in, or become witness of, the duel. Sully, his great
minister, did not approve of this “excess of severity,” and the
measure failed, as he predicted it would ; because of the “ob-
stacles to its execution,” and because of the many pardons which
would be granted to persons of quality, “the example and hope
of which affording sufficient encouragement to others to infringe
the law.” -
Quite as unavailing were the edicts and efforts of Louis the
Thirteenth, “ though it was something to see a Montmorenci
formally executed for fighting a duel.” The ordinances of
Louis the Fourteenth, in 1643, in 1651, and in 1670, were alike
futile. But an edict of 1679, which created Courts of Honor
with the marshals of France and the governors of provinces
as supreme judges in differences between gentlemen; which
prohibited private combats within and without the kingdom ; and
*-

8 DUELLING.
which declared that “those who, doubting of their own courage,
shall have called in the aid of seconds, thirds, or a greater num-
ber of persons, shall, besides the punishment of death and con-
fiscation, be degraded from their nobility, and have their coat
of arms publicly blackened and broken by the hangman,” had
a salutary effect, and, as is said, gave the first considerable and
permanent check to the custom.
M. Dupin, the distinguished advocate, stated, considerately,
a few years ago, that, in France, to kill another in single combat
is murder; yet, says one who wrote in 1832, “ duels are not
severely punished by the present French code.”
GREAT BRIT AIN.
The Norman Conquest introduced the institution of chivalry.
Under the feudal system, duelling became general. The barons
and gentlemen of rank appealed to the sword to redress their
real or imaginary wrongs, at pleasure, and almost with impunity.
Nobles who could neither read nor write cared nothing for the
tribunals of justice ; and, fierce and ungovernable as they were
ignorant, they indulged in animosities towards one another to an
extent hardly now, in the progress of civilization, to be believed.
In fine, the aristocracy, arrogant, turbulent, and powerful, not
only assumed the right to avenge their own quarrels, but at times
to determine the claims of rival aspirants to the throne by per-
sonal combat.
There seems to have been no change of moment until the
reigns of Elizabeth and of her immediate successor. In truth,
duels were more frequent at the succession of James the First,
than at any former period. That monarch, however deficient
in firmness of purpose, gave no countenance to the duello ; and
though he neglected to enforce the laws, his loguacity in his
, closet and his course with particular courtiers had some influ-
ence upon individual and the public sentiment. But the check
was temporary. Towards the close of the reign of Anne
(1711), “ duelling,” says Addison, “ had become honorable, and
the refusul to engage in it ignominious.” A.
The first political or party challenge was given by the great
Duke of Marlborough to Lord Paulett, in the year 1712. The
precedent was disastrous. Messages and combats for words
uttered in debate succeeded, and to a degree which spread alarm.
After the meeting between Mr. Fullarton and Lord Shelburne,
... * *..
GREAT BRITAIN. 9
in 1780, Sir James Lowther declared, in the House of Commons,
that the “custom of fighting duels in consequence of parliamen.
tary business, or of expressions dropped in either house, seemed
growing into such a custom, that it was necessary for them to
interpose their authority, before it acquired the force of a settled
habit, otherwise there must be an end of all freedom of debate,
and consequently of all business in Parliament.” But members
of both houses continued to meet with sword and pistol as
before. - -
In Ireland, the period of the union with England was prolific
in political duels. The debates upon that measure were per-
sonal beyond all example, and beyond all decency. And so,
at one time, during the last century, a mania for duelling seized
the Irish lawyers. “A duel was an indispensable diploma, quite
essential to success at the bar, and sometimes leading even to
the bench.” *
Details may be found elsewhere in these pages. It will suffice
to remark here, that during the reign of George the Third (nearly
sixty years), about one hundred and seventy duels are known to
have been fought in the British Isles, or by British subjects who
were absent in, or repaired to, other countries. Barrington
numbers two hundred and twenty-seven “during his grand
climacteric.” Our English brethren are very careful to remind
us of our sins in this behalf, and are constantly commenting
upon the quarrels of our statesmen in Congress and elsewhere;
forgetting, in their anxiety to reproach us, that the Dukes of
York, Norfolk, Richmond, and Wellington, Lords Shelburne, Tal-
bot, Lauderdale, Townshend, Camelford, Malden, Paget, Lon-
donderry, Castlereagh, Belgrave, and Thurlow, and Fox, Pitt,
Sheridan, Canning, Wyndham, Tierney, Hastings, Francis,
Grattan, Curran, Burditt, and many other orators and statesmen,
are among their own duellists.
The measures of the British government claim a passing no-
tice.v Queen Elizabeth attacked duelling by restricting fencing-
schools. James, her successor, relied principally upon procla-
mations. Cromwell's Parliament, proceeding a step— on parch-
ment, enacted a law. Charles the Second proclaimed that the
survivor of a duel should not receive the royal pardon. And
Queen Anne mentioned the “impious practice of duelling” in
a speech from the throne. In 1719, or the following year, Sir
Joseph Jekyll made an effort to procure efficient legislation, but
was opposed in the House of Lords, and failed. •
{
*


10 DUET, LING.
To kill in a duel has been a capital offence for centuries; but,
with two or three exceptions, the penalty has never been en-
forced.
In 1844, Mr. Turner moved a resolution in the House of Com-
mons, in the hope of inducing the repeal of the existing enact-
ments, which are practically obsolete, and substituting a provision
that the survivor of a duel should be liable to pay the debts of a
deceased antagonist. He was opposed by several members of
influence, and the movement was unsuccessful. Sir Robert
Peel, according to Wade, distrusted the efficacy of legislative
changes, – relied rather on the state of public opinion, — and
especially objected at that moment, in consequence of the recent
formation of an association of distinguished naval and military
officers to discountenance duelling; while Sir Henry Hardinge
would not disturb the statute-book, because, a few days previ-
ously, the articles of war had been amended in a manner to pro-
vide a remedy in the military arms of the service.
TJNITED STATES.
Edward Doty and Edward Lester, two servingmen among
the Puritans, were the first duellists in New England, and pos-
sibly in the United States, as will be seen by reference to the
*notice under their names. We hear little of duels at the North
for a long period afterwards. There is a tradition, however, that
Castle Island (now Fort Independence), in Boston harbor, was
once celebrated as duelling-ground for “the hot-headed sons of
Old England.” -
The public documents, the private correspondence, and the
newspapers of the Revolutionary era, contain but few cases of
challenge or actual combat in the Whig service ; while my per-
sonal inquiries of Loyalist officers in the service of the crown,
who remembered almost every incident of the kind, lead me to
the conclusion that duelling was not frequent during the war on
either side. Nor do I find that the practice in the American
army excited apprehension until the year 1799, when it was
“carried to an extreme in every point of view reprehensible and
injurious,” and drew from the general second in rank an order
, or a letter, in which he said that, although it was not his intention
to “contravene military prejudices,” yet interposition to arrest
the progress of the evil was not only proper, but a duty.
Early in the war with Tripoli, many of our officers became
UNITED STATES. 11
|
- |
involved in quarrels among themselves, and with officers of the
British navy on service in the Mediterranean, and several fatal
duels followed ; but Commodore Preble, who, with the third
American squadron, succeeded Dale and Morris in that sea, put
an end to these controversies, and not a single hostile meeting
occurred while he was in command. But in 1819 officers of our
flag, and British officers in garrison at Gibraltar, indulged in dis-
putes and duels so freely, that the governor finally issued an order
forbidding the ships of our navy to enter the port. The attention
of the two governments was attracted to the subject; and after
several conferences between our Minister in London and Lords
Castlereagh and Bathurst, and orders from the President to the
American Commodore in the Mediterranean, harmony was re-
stored.
These general remarks will suffice. The number and fatality
of hostile meetings in the United States are to be deplored.
These pages are filled with accounts which are disreputable to
us as a people, and which may well cause us to hang our heads
in utter shame. If the custom were principally confined to the
new States, we might find some reason to hope that, in the rapid
changes in American society, the evil would soon diminish, and
in the end disappear; but Arkansas and California, unfortunately,
are not alone. *
We pass, to notice the measures that have been attempted or
adopted to suppress duelling. In Congress, as early as 1802,
Mr. Gray of Virginia moved (in the House) to appoint a com-
mittee to inquire into the expediency of a law to disqualify any
person from holding an office under the government of the United
States, who should thereafter be concerned in a duel, or in send-
ing or carrying a challenge ; but the House refused to consider
the subject.
In 1806, however, an act was passed for the regulation of the
army, which provides, that “no officer or soldier shall send a
challenge to another officer or soldier to fight a duel, or accept
a challenge, if sent, upon pain, if a commissioned officer, of being
cashiered ; if a non-commissioned officer or soldier, of suffering
corporal punishment, at the discretion of a court-martial.” In
1820, after the fall of Decatur, a resolution was submitted to the
Committee on Military Affairs, with a design to provide by law
a more effectual remedy to prevent duelling in the army and
navy, and in the District of Columbia; but the Committee re-
ported, that the existing law, “if erecuted,” was “amply suffi-


12 DUELLING.
cient,” and asked, therefore, to be discharged from further duty.
In 1824, Mr. Wright of Ohio offered a resolution embracing sub-
stantially the objects of Mr. Gray's resolve in 1802; which,
though referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, was hardly
heard of afterwards. In the Senate, in 1831, Mr. Livingston
attempted, by means of a special committee of that body, to call
the attention of Congress to the subject of duelling in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, but without success. The fatal result of the
meeting between Cilley and Graves, in 1838, induced renewed
efforts to suppress the barbarous custom at the seat of govern-
ment; and a bill “to prohibit the giving or accepting, within
the District of Columbia, a challenge to fight a duel, and for the
punishment thereof.” after protracted and violent opposition, be-
came a law, February 20, 1839. In 1843, at the instance of
Mr. Stratton, the Committee on Naval Affairs were instructed by
the House “to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill for
the suppression of duelling in the navy'; but, as in the previ-
ous inquiries relative to that branch of the public service, to the
army, and to the civil departments of the government, above
mentioned, no legislation followed. .
In turning to the individual States, we find that statute pro-
visions against single combats exist in all of them. In some the
punishment is death, in others imprisonment, in still others dis-
qualification to hold office. Nay, more. The Constitutions of
Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Texas, Iowa, Wis-
consin, Michigan, Connecticut, Missouri, and California, contain
stipulations on the subject which seem ample. The degree of
respect paid to both statute and constitutional law, in many of
the States of the Union, fully appears in these pages, and need
not be discussed here.)
SWEDEN.
My notes relate to the reign of Gustavus Adolphus exclusively.
About the year 1627, when duelling had become an evil of
alarming magnitude throughout Europe, the king determined to
suppress it entirely in his dominions. He accordingly established
a Court of Honor, composed of the principal officers of his army,
to try such offences as usually, in the estimation of gentlemen,
required an appeal to the duello; and ordained that the sending
or the accepting of a challenge should be punished with death.
2


~ SWEDEN. — GERMANY. - 13
But military men were not content with the arrangement, and
preferred, at every hazard, to redress their own wrongs ; and to
some extent continued to do so. A memorable instance of this
preference has been preserved. Two of his officers, who had
served him long and faithfully, and who desired to fight, but
were unwilling to displease him or incur the penalty of the edict,
urged, in a petition to the throne, that in their case liberty for a
duel might be granted. Gustavus consented. The two officers,
attended by their friends, repaired to the appointed ground,
where the king, with a body of troops, soon also appeared, and
formed a circle around them. The combatants finished their
preparations in the royal presence, took their places, and drew
their weapons, when their attention was attracted to a personage
within the ring, who, with a sabre, seemed ready to become a
party to the combat. “Do not be surprised, gentlemen,” said the
king ; “according to the laws of your country, your lives are
already forfeited. . . . . . You will therefore take notice, that, the
instant either of you falls by the sword of his antagonist, the ex-
ecutioner, whom you perceive yonder, has orders to strike off
the head of the survivor.” The officers, ashamed and con-
founded, fell at the feet of their sovereign and implored his
forgiveness, which was granted, on the condition of their recon-
ciliation, and a solemn engagement to obedience in the future.
The biographer of Gustavus adds, that he declared that he
would on no other occasion forgive those who offended in like
manner. “It is my wish,” he said, “to have soldiers under my
command, and not gladiators. If any man is desirous of freeing
his character from the imputation of cowardice in the eyes of his
fellow-countrymen, let him do so at the expense of the common
enemy.” All honor to the great king of Sweden ; but I derive
an incident from another source, which affords proof that his
course was governed by reasons of state alone ; since, in the
height of his glory, we find him passing the frontier of his do-
minions for the sole purpose of “offering the satisfaction of a
gentleman " to one of his own officers whom he had offended.
(See Gustavus the Second and Colonel Seaton.)
GERMANY.
In ancient times duels could be fought in Witzbourg, Uspach,
and Halle, but nowhere else in the German dominions. Göt-
tingen, in later days, has been famous for the combats between

14 DUELLING.
-- .
---:
students of its University. About the year 1816, especially, the
number of duels became alarming, and rigid measures were
adopted to suppress them. At present, the government of the
empire seems disposed to perform its duty. In 1851 the sur-
vivor of a duel was compelled by the authorities to be present at
the post-mortem examination of the body of his victim, and to
pay strict attention to the proceedings of the surgeons.
PRUSSIA.
Charles Frederic was the determined foe of duelling, and
exerted his power to suppress it. But he often lamented his
failure. s,
His successor, in 1786, established a Court of Honor for the
trial of personal differences, and ordained that the duellists should
be subject to the following penalties : —
“Any officer or gentleman striking his equal, in any manner whatso-
ever, to be declared infamous, and be confined in a fortress for life.
“If the person who received the blow should happen to be the ag-
gressor, by any sort of outrage, he shall be confined for three or six
years, according to the aggravation of his offence; and if an officer,
he shall be struck off, besides the imprisonment. Persons sending or
accepting a challenge, instead of applying to this Court, to be confined
in a fortress for three or six years.
“A duel taking place, and one of the parties being killed, the sur-
vivor to be considered as an assassin, and punished with death; and if
none of the parties should fall, both shall be imprisoned in a fortress
for ten years, and even for life. -
“Persons laying hold of a weapon in a private quarrel, though mak-
ing no use of it, to be confined for three years.
“Any person threatening another with a duel, or some material in-
jury, to be considered as a violator of the public peace, and confined
for one or two years. *
“Any person flying his country, after fighting a duel, to forfeit his
estate during his life, and his effigy to be stuck to the pillory.
“Any person acting in a duel as second, to be punished with five
years' imprisonment in a fortress; and a life being lost, the confinement
of the second to extend to ten years.
“Any person abetting or enticing another to demand satisfaction
by means of a duel, to be punished with one or several years' imprison-
ment. The same punishment to be inflicted on any one casting a re-
flection on, or showing a pointed disrespect for, a person applying to
this Court. The offender, in this case, to be likewise deprived of his
employments and titles of honor. - * Ş
“Any dispute attended with extraordinary circumstances, to be re-
ferred to the throne.” -
TOURNAMENT, OR MOCK DUEL. 15
These regulations had some influence in checking the evil for
a time ; but in the lapse of a few years, duellists in Prussia were
as numerous as elsewhere in Europe, and were as seldom pun-
ished. The penalty in that kingdom, in 1842, was imprisonment,
except in “foul fighting,” when it was death. That the laws
upon the subject were sometimes enforced, appears from the
fact, that, a few years previous (1828), a nobleman, who slew
his antagonist, was deprived of all his honors, and that those
concerned in the affair were committed to close prison.
}
~ e’
l NAPLES.
The Neapolitans have been regarded as the best swordsmen
in Europe. Perhaps they are so. They have unfaltering faith
in the duello ; but, contenting themselves with inflicting a wound,
or with merely drawing blood, their affairs of honor are seldom
serious or terminate fatally.
MALTA.
As late, certainly, as the year 1832, duelling was allowed by
law. But the parties were required to meet in a certain desig-
nated street, and to put up their swords at the request or com-
mand of a woman, an ecclesiastic, or a knight. It was the cus-
tom to commemorate a death by duel by painting a cross on the
wall opposite to the spot where the victim was slain. A travel-
ler counted some twenty of these mementos.
C H A P T E R III.
\
ToURNAMENT, or Mock DUEL.-Joust. — CHAMPIONSHIP of ENG-
- LAND. — PRIZE FIGHT. —BoxING.
TOURNAMENT: OR MOCK DUEL.
SoME writers are disposed to find the germ of the tournament
in the public games and contests of Greece and Rome, while
others, anxious to find no resemblance between it and any cus-
tom of antiquity, treat it as an institution purely Gothic, and as

16 TOURNAMENT, OR MOCK DUEL.
belonging to the era of chivalry. Our first certain knowledge
upon the subject is about the year 918, when we hear of “regu-
lations ° ordained by Henry the Fowler, king of Germany; and
in 1066, when Geoffrey de Priuli collected the rules and cus-
toms of the tournament into a code ; and from this period it was
regulated by distinct laws. It was reserved by kings and queens
originally to commemorate some important event, either in the
royal family or in national affairs; but it soon became common
among private gentlemen who were skilled in the use of the
lance or sword. Heralds were sent throughout the land, and
sometimes to foreign countries, to announce to all noblemen and
ladies, that on a certain day, and near a certain castle or abbey,
the king, or a body of knights, (as the case might be,) would hold
a grand tournament, at which all brave knights and gallant gentle-
men might appear and try their prowess. At first the weap-
ons were blunt, and the contests commonly harmless ; but sharp
weapons were finally introduced, and combats occurred that
hardly differed from the modern duel. The tournament pre-
vailed in most of the countries of Europe, and no efforts were
made to suppress it until a number of princes and other persons of
distinction had either lost their lives or been seriously injured ;
when the Church and several monarchs issued their mandates, of
prohibition.
We have an account of a grand tournament exhibited by
Philip of France, in the year 1344, which contains details of a
serious nature. Among the nobles present were several who,
in the difficulties with England, had taken part with Edward,
and who, lured to the scene, were secured and put to death.
The English monarch, in revenge, sent Philip a defiance to meet
in personal combat, and made immediate and extensive prepara-
tions for renewing hostilities between the two countries.
In 1520, there was a famous pageant near the castle of
Guisnes, in France, which continued some two weeks, and at
which the kings and queens of France and England were pres-
ent. The whole time was devoted to feats of arms and gay
carousals. The monarchs themselves entered the lists, and, with
their chosen knights, tilted with spears against all comers for six
days ; the tourney with the broadsword on horseback occupied
two days more ; and combats on foot at the barriers concluded
the affair. Two unfortunate accidents put an end in France to an
amusement which, as was pithily said, was “too much for a jest,
and too little for earnest.” In 1559, Henry the Second held a
TOURNAMENT, OR MOCK DUEL. 17
tournament in honor of the marriage of his daughter Elizabeth
to Philip, king of Spain, and entered the lists in person. After
breaking the lances of several antagonists, he desired to run a
tilt with a young officer of the Scottish guards (who became sub-
sequently the Count Montgomery), and was mortally wounded in
the encounter. From this period we date a decline; but the
tournament was not entirely prohibited and abolished until the
year 1605, when, at the last in the kingdom, Francis de Bassom-
pierre, of the princely house of Cleves, was dangerously hurt by
the lance of his antagonist, the Duke of Guise.
The tournament was introduced into England by the Normans,
soon after the conquest. We hear of it in the reign of Stephen,
as early as the year 1136; and we find that in 1215, immedi-
ately after King John had conceded to the barons at Runnymead
the great charter of English liberties, a great tournament pro-
posed to be held by the barons at Stamford, in commemoration
of their triumph, was postponed in consequence of their distrust
of the king's sincerity. But as Geoffrey, son of Henry the Sec-
ond, was slain in a tilt at Paris, and as the Pope had formally
and unconditionally prohibited all martial meetings of the kind
under severe penalties, we hear little of the savage amusement
until the reign of Richard the First. That monarch, while
abroad in the Crusades, had observed that the French knights,
in the management of the horse and the lance, were much supe-
rior to his own ; and attributing the difference principally to the
tournament, which prevailed in France, he determined to re-
move the inferiority by the same course of training. Tilts,
under the royal sanction, soon became popular.
Five of the tournaments in the reign of Edward the Third
are of sufficient interest to claim a passing notice. The first
was in London in 1330, to commemorate the birth of Edward
the Black Prince, with thirteen knights on a side ; a tempo-
rary tower was erected for the accommodation of the queen and
her ladies, but so slight and insecure as to break down, to the
great terror of all present. No one was hurt; but the king, in
a tempest of rage, vowed instant death to the careless workmen,
but was appeased by the queen, who threw herself at his feet
and implored his clemency. The next was in 1338, when the
Earl of Derby, who had distinguished himself both at home and
in the Holy Land, invited Sir Alexander Ramsay to meet him
at Berwick with twenty knights and gentlemen, to tilt with an
equal number of Englishmen. Ramsay accepted. The encounter
2 # •
18 TOURNAMENT, OR MOCK DUEL.
\
was without shields and with sharp spears; and two of the
English and one of the Scotch knights were slain. The third was
at Windsor, in 1344; and, to avoid distinction of rank, the king
built a circular hall- two hundred feet in diameter, where he
feasted all the knights who attended at one table. The fourth
was in honor of the wedding day of the Earl of Pembroke, who
was accidentally killed ; the Countess led a life of retirement
ever afterwards, devoted her fortune to public and private chari-
ties, and founded Pembroke College. The last was at Smith-
field in 1374, when Edward, haviag fallen in love with Alice
Perrers, a married woman of great beauty, who had been a lady
of the queen's bed-chamber, appeared with the adulteress by
his side in a magnificent chariot, under the title of the “Lady
of the Sun.” It may not be amiss to add, that three years later,
when the monarch was on his death-bed, he was forsaken by all,
and that even Alice Perrers robbed him of his jewels and of the
rings on his fingers, and abandoned him to his fate.
Richard the Second, towards the close of his reign, and proba-
bly the very year of his abdication (1399), after making procla-
mation throughout the realm, held a grand tournament at Windsor.
Forty knights and forty squires, dressed in green, and bearing
the device of the young queen, entered the lists and maintained
her beauty against all comers. , Isabella herself, attended by the
highest-born dames and damsels of England, was present, and
dispensed the prizes to the successful, combatants.
Among the other courtly pageants at the coronation of Joanna
of Navarre, queen of Henry the Fourth, in the year 1403, was
a tournament, in which the Earl of Warwick appeared as cham-
pion of the royal bride, and “so notably and knightly behaved
himself, as redounded to his noble fame and perpetual worship.”
We find record of another celebrated tilt in the reign of Henry
the Sixth, after his marriage with Margaret of Anjou, which was
attended by throngs of princely knights and gallant men-at-arms,
who wore garlands of daisies in the lists, in compliment to the
Queen, who had selected this flower for her emblem. Charles
the Seventh, a kinsman, and Charles of Anjou, an uncle of Marl
garet, were among the distinguished personages who displayed
their skill in the encounters on this occasion.
So again in the time of Edward the Fourth, in 1468, when
the king gave his sister Margaret to the Duke of Burgundy, we
have a wedding tourney, in which the Prince of Orange, with
twenty knights and noblemen, met the same number under the

TOURNAMENT, OR Mock DUEL. 19
profligate Adolf of Cleves, and upon his challenge ; and in which
the combats, though “with arms of courtesy,” were so very
fierce as to require interference, and the separation of the tilters
by main force. -
The most memorable tournament at the opening of the six-
teenth century (1506) was that given by James the Fourth of
Scotland in honor of a Moorish or black lady who had been cap-
tured in a Portuguese ship and carried to his court. The sable
lady was introduced in a triumphal chariot, and gallant knights
contended for the prizes which, by royal appointment, she was
to adjudge. It is said, indeed, that all the arrangements were
on a princely scale, and that, in answer to articles of defiance to
the chivalry of the French court, to come over and “try con-
clusions' with the champions of the “black ladye,” several
valiant gentlemen appeared, and that one, Sir Anthony D’Arsy,
gained much distinction.
As differing from any of the preceding, I select the case of
an individual tilter of the reign of Henry the Eighth. Henry
Howard, Earl of Surrey, was not only an accomplished noble-
man, but the best English poet of his time. While at Florence,
on a tour of Europe, he published a challenge to all comers,
whether Christians, Jews, Saracens, Turks, or Cannibals, that he
would tilt in defence of his mistress; and in a tournament insti-
tuted in consequence by the Grand Duke, he was victorious.
Equally successful was the chivalrous poet at a tourney at home,
in 1540, when the whole court assembled to witness his feats in
8.TIOS.
The last in England which was attended by royal and noble
foreigners, was in 1554, in honor of the nuptials of Mary, who
distributed the prizes with her own hand. The chivalry of Eng-
land, Spain, and Flanders were present, attired in their national
costume. Two hundred spears were broken by the combatants,
and many of the prizes were of curious device and of consider-
able value. The Queen's husband, Philip of Spain, entered the
lists, and received the second prize “for the best armor and the
most gallant entry.” Sir George Howard, brother of the Queen
Katharine Howard, and Thomas Percy, afterwards Earl of
Northumberland, and Lord William Howard, the high-admiral,
won very general commendation.
Our record of the ancient tourney will close with the mention
of one in 1572, in the reign of Elizabeth. While the Queen
was at supper, late at night, an old man entered the palace with
*
.*
20 * TOURNAMENT, OR MOCK DUEL.
two damsels, and implored succor. In a moment, — by previ-
ous arrangement of course, — ten knights in white, led by the
Earl of Essex, and ten in blue, under the Earl of Rutland, com-
menced a contest on horseback, with swords, which continued
until morning, when the Queen, by the advice of the umpires,
declared that the maidens were delivered, and put an end to the
affair.
An attempt was made in England in 1839 to revive the tour-
nament according to the forms of the Middle Ages. The task
was undertaken by the Earl of Eglintoun, who made preparation
for a grand exhibition at Eglintoun Castle; “but the unpropitious
weather, with the obsolete style of the performances, rendered it
a failure.” -
Much better success seems to have attended the recent move-
ment in the United States. The first tourney of which I have
any note was on the domain of the Carroll family, in Maryland, in
1849, when sixteen knights entered the field, among whom were
several officers of the army. Lieutenant Rhett, a recent grad-
uate of the Military Academy at West Point, was declared victor
of the day, and selected Miss Poultney of Baltimore, “Queen of
Beauty.” Three other knights won the privilege of choosing
Maids of Honor, namely, Messrs. Charles Howard, William Key
Howard, and Henry Scott, all of Maryland, who severally made
choice of Misses Lydia Morris, Louisa Carroll, and Julia Howard.
i There was another in Virginia, near Winchester, the same
year. The number of persons present was large, and the per-
formances were pronounced highly honorable to those who took
part in them. Mr. O'Bannon, of Jefferson County, was the vic-
tor, and named Miss Bettie Taylor, of Maryland, as the “Queen
of Love and Beauty.” One of the knights wore a costume
which was brought from the Dead Sea by Lieutenant Lynch.
In 1851 there was a third tournament, in South Carolina.
Twenty-six knights, magnificently dressed, rode into the lists, at
the sound of the trumpet, and saluted the ladies. The Knight of
St. John won the first prize, and selected the Belle of St. John, for
the Queen. She was crowned with white roses.
In 1852 we note a fourth, which was exhibited near the Ork-
ney Springs, Virginia. Mr. George B. Swift, who appeared as
Richard Coeur de Lion, was victorious; and Miss Emily Moffit
was crowned “Queen of Love and Beauty.” There was still
another in Virginia in 1853; which afforded great satisfaction
to a numerous company.

JOUST, OR JUST. 21
From the accounts before me, I suppose that all of these tilts
at the South differed in several essential particulars from the
tournaments of olden time.
*
JOUST, OR JUST.
This was a combat between two persons, and in this was un-
like the tournament; and it differed in the further particular, that,
by agreement, it might be a mortal fight, or common duel. In
a joust to the death, the knights generally belonged to different
countries; in that of courtesy, they met at the close of a tourney,
though sometimes at a place specially designated for the pur-
OS62. -
p Two instances of the latter form will answer the purpose in-
tended by these notes. -
In honor of the coronation of the queen of Edward the Fourth
of England, in 1465, a challenge for a joust of courtesy was sent
by Sir Anthony Woodville, her Majesty’s brother, to the Count
de la Roche, the most renowned champion in Europe. The
Count accepted the invitation, but failed to appear. Two years
afterwards, however, the knights met in England, and Woodville
vanquished the French noble. -
The most celebrated joust of the sixteenth century was, I sup-
pose, in 1590, between David Lindesay, Earl of Crawford, and
the Lord Wells, ambassador of Richard the Second to the court
of Scotland. Richard, by letter of Privy Seal, gave “safe-
conduct for David de Lindesy, knight, for the duel to be fought
with John de Welles,” with his retinue of twenty-nine persons
in armor, and twelve other knights, with their esquires, varlets,
and pages. The combat was on London Bridge, on horseback,
with square ground spears. The king, the nobles, and a vast
throng, were spectators. At the signal, the jousters “rushed
hastily together with a mighty force,” and splintered their weap-
ons. At the second encounter, the spears were again shivered.
At the third, the English knight was dismounted, and fell breath-
less to the ground, amid the cry of the multitude that he was
killed. Lindesay, proclaimed victor, suddenly leaped from his
horse, and, casting himself upon the neck of his antagonist, ten-
derly embraced him until he revived, and the surgeon came to .
attend him. •
Among the distinguished jousters of a later period, Sir Philip
Sidney, an accomplished writer and statesman of Queen Eliza-
…”
22 CHAMPIONSHIP OF ENGLAND.
beth's time, deserves respectful mention. The joust was assailed
by vigorous pens, even in the reign of Henry the Eighth ; the
“Lyon king at arms ” of the Court of James the Fifth of Scot-
land, in a satirical poem entitled “The Justing between James
Watson and John Barbour”; and an English writer in an essay
ridiculed the splendid solemnities and unnecessary bloodshed of
the joust and the tourney, and with effect upon the public mind.
.*
CHAMPIONSHIP OF ENGLAND.
The crown of England is, in theory at least, put in issue by
appeal to the Judicial Duel, or Wager of Battle, at every demise
of the sovereign. The custom was introduced by William the
Conqueror. At the coronation of himself and his queen, in the
year 1068, a cavalier completely armed rode into the hall, and,
interrupting the festivities, uttered this challenge three times: —
“If any person denies that our most gracious sovereign, Lord William,
and his spouse Matilda, are not king and queen of England, he is a false-
hearted traitor and a liar; and here I, as champion, do challenge him to
single combat.” .
This challenge has been continued to the present day. Omit.
ting notice of the coronation of William the Second, of the
Henrys, of Stephen and John, the Richards, the Edwards, and
of Mary, the first that claims particular attention is that of
Elizabeth, in 1559, when the champion, Sir Edward Dymock,
cast down his gauntlet, and offered to defend the
“Most high and mighty princess, our dread sovereign, Lady Eliza-
beth, by the grace of God Queen of England, France, Ireland, defender
of the true, ancient, and Catholic faith, most worthy empress from the
Orcade Isles to the Mountains Pyrenee.” r
. The words in italics are singular, inasmuch as the Bishop of
Carlisle was the only bishop who would consent to crown her,
because she had declared against the “Catholic faith,” and had
become a Protestant or heretic. This was an era in the Church.
We pass to a change in the state, and in the royal family.
A curious incident, according to tradition, occurred at the coro-
nation of William and Mary, in 1689. \
. The substance of the story is, that after Sir Charles Dymock
had thrown his gauntlet, and pronounced his defiance in the
name of “our sovereign lord and lady,” an unknown female
PRIZE FIGHTS. 23
stepped from the crowd and lifted the glove, dropped her gage,
with a paper containing an acceptance of the challenge in behalf
of a champion of rank and birth, who, if fair field were allowed,
would appear in Hyde Park to defend the rights of another
claimant to the throne; and further, that at the time appointed
a stalwart man repaired to the Park, and paced the ground for
some hours as if expecting an antagonist. The legend is used
in “Redgauntlet,” but Sir Walter Scott relates it as having hap-
pened at the coronation of George the Third, or at a time when
the cause of the Stuarts was hopeless.
At the coronation of George the Fourth, in 1821, Mr. Dymock
entered Westminster Abbey on horseback, during the royal ban-
quet, and said : — *
“If any person shall deny that [his Majesty, &c., &c.] is heir to the
imperial crown of this United Kingdom, or that he ought not to enjoy
the same, here is his champion ; who saith he lieth, and is a false traitor,
being ready in person to combat with him, and in this quarrel will ad-
venture his life against him on what day soever he shall appoint.”
The championship is hereditary in the family of Dymock.
The official champion at the coronation of William the Fourth
being in holy orders, a debate arose in the courts, whether the
challenge could be given by deputy. The decision finally was,
that the clergyman’s eldest son might be allowed to appear as
his father's representative. - ë.
w
PRIZE FIGHTS.
The term “barbarous ages' falls flippantly from our tongues.
As we read of the strange filial piety of the Brutus who intro-
duced the gladiatorial fight to solemnize the funeral of his father,
we are amazed ; as we reflect upon the custom, even while the
combatants were prisoners of war, and domestic slaves, and
convicts, who used neither sword nor buckler, we denounce
it as brutal ; as we pursue its history, and find free citizens of
Rome fighting from inclination or for pay, and the greatest
of the Caesars personally arranging a show in which three hun-
dred pairs of gladiators were to be let loose upon one another
to maim and slay, that he might win the plaudits of the peo-
ple ; as we find the combat reduced to a science with professors
to teach the wounded to fall in the most graceful postures,
and to die in the finest attitudes; as at last we conclude the
f
24 PRIZE FIGHTS.
record with the knowledge that hundreds, probably thousands,
of victims were annually slaughtered in the great cities of the
empire, merely to gratify the spectators of the amphitheatres, –
we are shocked, and, forgetting his many crimes, eulogize the
emperor whose edict stayed the desolating amusement.
But why deplore the past to the neglect of the present P Why
speak of Roman gladiators, or of the gymnastic combats of
other ancient republics, when the same “barbarous ” custom
exists among ourselves, and among the people from whom we
proudly claim descent 2 -
There died in England, in the last century, a gladiator by
profession, who had visited the principal parts of Europe, and
had fought at home and abroad no less than three hundred and
fifty times “with honor and applause.” Nay, in the year 1825,
the son of an English earl and the nephew of a British marquis,
plied with brandy “between the rounds,” and, cheered on by
other noble youths, shamed the plebeian pugilists of the realm—
who are generally content to maim and disfigure — by a contest
with their noble fists, which ended only at the fall and death of
one of them. *
In the United States, prize fights are by no means rare. A
year has barely elapsed since one which would have disgraced
Rome, at the worst period of her history, occurred near the
boundary between Massachusetts and New York; the gathered
mass of human beings overawed the inhabitants, indulged in
every excess, and retired sated with every abomination.
In some parts of the country, the prize-fighter or modern
gladiator is hailed as a hero; the newspapers contain his biog-
raphy, his portrait, and a description of his person and propor-
tions, and wondering thousands read and comment upon the ac-
count of the “rounds " and “hits,” the wounds and bruises,
the amount of strength exhausted, and the quantity of “claret’”
lost during his latest fight. In fine, we may spare declamation
about the “barbarous ages,” until the magistrates, high and low,
have courage to execute the laws, and the “barbarous ” cus-
toms of duelling and boxing cease among ourselves.
- f
*

DUELS OF KINGs, GENERALs, AND NAVAI, of FICERs. 25
C H A P T E R IV .
CHALLENGES AND DUELS OF KINGs, GENERALS, NAVAL COMMANDERS,
AND KNIGHTS. – DUELLING IN THE CHURCH ; – AMONG AUTHORS,
ARTISTS, AND WOMEN.
KINGS, GENERALS, AND NAVAL OFFICERS.
Sover EIGNs, heroes, the commanders of fleets and armies,
have frequently offered to decide personal or national differences
by duel.
Several instances occur prior to the Christian era. Thus,
whatever were the motives of David, the challenge on Goliah's
part, according to Josephus, was to “determine the war” be-
tween the Hebrews and the Philistines. In poetry, we have the
duel between Menelaus and Paris, two of Homer's heroes, who,
by consent of the adverse kings, and in behalf of their respective
armies, were to decide the war. In returning to history, we
have the cartel of Cyrus to the king of Assyria; that of Pittacus
to Phyrnon ; and that of Antony to Caesar.
In later times, we have the challenges of William the Con-
queror to King Harold, before the decisive battle of Hastings,
and of Philip of France to Richard the First of England; the
, combat by champions arranged between John of England and
| Philip of France ; and the cartels of defiance of Richard the
Second and of Edward the Third of England, to the French
monarchs with whom they had private and national disputes.
So, again, we find that Ferdinand of Spain sent a herald to the
camp of Alfonso, king of Portugal, to defy him to a fair field of
fight with his whole army, or, declining that, to invite him to
decide their differences by personal combat. In Scottish history
we have the message of Haco, king of Norway, to Alexander
the Third ; of Bothwell to his adversaries generally; and, pre-
vious to the calamitous battle of Flodden, the overture to settle
the fate of contending parties without a conflict between the
armies. In naval warfare, the challenge of Marshal Boucicault
to Carlo Zeno, the commander of the fleet of Venice, at the
commencement of the fifteenth century, and the proposition of
our own Decatur, in the war of 1812, are examples of chivalry
worthy of mention. And, last, thesmanifesto of Paul of Russia,
*- 3 . *
26 DUELLING IN THE CHURCH.
inviting the sovereigns of Europe to settle their quarrels by
duel at St. Petersburg, with their ministers, Pitt, Bernstoff, and
Talleyrand, as seconds, – which, though conceived by a mad-
man, deserves serious thought; for there is something grand,
even just, in the idea of demanding kings and cabinets to meet
in person, and in the field, the questions which can be, and ought
to be, adjusted in council and by diplomacy.
KNIGHTS: THEIR FEATS AND ENCOUNTERS.
Knighthood is to be traced to Greece, and to the period when
men of rank and wealth served in war, on horseback, at their
private expense.
In Europe generally, under the feudal system, the era of chiv-
alry was one of giants and enchanters, of dragons and spells, of
forlorn damsels and wonderful rescues, and of a thousand other
marvels. Knighthood was designed to “direct and control the
torrent of unprincipled courage and military violence ’’; but
whatever it may have accomplished in this respect, it certainly
increased the practice of duelling, and “sowed the first seeds of
that fantastic honor, the bitterness of whose fruits is still manifest
in the modern duel.” The young knight went forth without a
quarrel, but with the determined purpose of provoking one, and
seldom failed ; while such was the refinement of the code estab-
lished for knightly bearing and demeanor, that visits of courtesy
at the different courts often terminated in affairs of honor, of
which sovereigns and courtiers were spectators. At times, not
content with single combats, as many as ten, twenty, and even
thirty knights would enter the lists on a side, and fight to the
maiming or death of several of their nnmber, upon a challenge
or boast that the reigning beauty of a certain neighborhood was
the beauty of a kingdom or province. In a word, every young
man of rank was trained to consider military fame and personal
valor as paramount to religion, justice, and humanity, and to be
the great prizes of human life.
DUELLING IN THE CHURCH.
Among the Germans, the Danes, and the Franks, the clergy
were compelled to maintain their controversies by the judicial
duel, though the liberty of appearing in the lists by champion
was allowed them. In the eleventh century, we are informed
*J
2~,
DUELS OF WHITERS AND ARTISTS. (27.
that, in a dispute relative to two Liturgies, two knights, clad
in complete armor, were selected as critics to determine, in
single combat, the true from the false form of public prayer.
By a statute of William the Qonqueror, the inferior orders of
ecclesiastics in England were forbidden an appeal to the duel,
without the consent of their bishop ; but questions concerning
the property of churches and monasteries were decided, and
the priests accompanied their champions to bless their weapons,
on the field, there, as elsewhere in Europe, for a long period.
In the fourteenth century, we hear of one poem in which Pi-
late is represented as challenging our Saviour to a duel, and
of another in which the person who pierced the side of Christ
on the cross is described as a knight with whom he had
jousted. Still later, we hear of challenges given and accepted
by officiating priests at the altar; of archbishops clattering in
armor; of gauntlets of defiance hung up in churches; and of
men in holy orders who fought in quarrels which others refused
to espouse. Such, in general terms, was the condition of the
Church for hundreds of years; and as far down as Shakespeare's
time the duel arranged by the bard, in the Merry Wives of
Windsor, between a Welsh parson and a French physician,
serves to remind us that men in gown and surplice continued to
use the sword until the accession of Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, |
Walpole, in 1758, speaks of a reverend doctor of divinity who
indulged in profane swearing, and who endeavored to intimidate
a person whom he feared would give publicity to the fact, by the
threat that he had a kinsman in the army who would call him to
an account ; which incident, as well as the notices of the duels
actually fought by Murat, Allen, Bate, and others, who were
either students of theology or ordained clergymen, affords us
eyidence that duelling in the Church did not disappear on the
p” .....--
Continent or in England-antil near—the close of the last century.
sº-º-º-º-º-º-º:
DUELS OF WIRITERS AND ARTISTS.
Two or three centuries ago, quarrels which commenced with
pens often ended with poniards. There was a class of writers
who enjoyed the reputation of “fighting authors,” who drew the
sword on the reviewer that condemned a play, who offered to
fight any of the audience that hissed, who began a work by
challenging the critics, and who were in perpetual difficulty with
somebody. The duels between Scott and Christie, Jeffrey and
28 DUELLING AMONG. FEMALES.
Moore, Lamartine and Pepe, Blanc and Lacombe, Angier and
Moncelet, and between the Baron Gourgaud and the Count
Segur, in our own day, show that the custom has not entirely
passed away.
Among musicians, we have the affairs of Handel with Mathe-
son, and of Ole Bull with a fellow-artist. Painters seem to have
been as prone to quarrels as other men of like nice sensibilities,
but have seldom, I conclude, resorted to the field. The inimita-
ble Hogarth had a host of enemies, but he disposed of them all
with his brush. Traduced by Wilkes, in the North Briton, he
painted the demagogue's portrait, and showed up with terrible
effect his personal and moral deformities; embroiled with Pope,
-*he drew a picture of the poet standing on a scaffold, employed
as a whitewasher, with Lord Burlington as a fellow-laborer and
Lord Chandos besprinkled in passing by; angry with Churchill,
he appeared on canvas in the character of a bear ; and displeased
with the course of the statesmen Pitt and Temple, both were
scourged by his unrelenting and awful pencil.
DUELLING AMONG. FEMALES.
As the Helen of Homer was the chief cause of the Trojan
war, and of consequence responsible for the duels between its
heroes, – as the Roman maids and matrons went in throngs to
witness the fights of the gladiators, – as the women of Greece
were competitors for the prize in the Olympic games,— as the
Turkish ladies crowded upon the ramparts of Regal to witness
the combats between Smith and their own champions,— as the
wives and daughters of Denmark were once compelſed by cus-
tom personally to avenge their wrongs, and fight, according to
prescribed rules, those of the other sex who attempted to assail
their honor, — as the high-born dames and maidens of all Eu-
rope, in the ages of chivalry, instigated and honored the tourna-
ment and the joust, — so have the women of France, and Eng-
land, and America, given countenance to the modern duel.
In the time of Henry the Fourth of France, relates Lord
Herbert, the English ambassador, the ladies of the French
court, at a mask under the auspices of the queen, invited the
attentions of a duellist who had slain eight or nine adversaries,
and each one of them, anxious to enjoy his society, would not
allow any particular lady to engross more than a certain share
of his time. And in the reign of another Bourbon, we are told.
WEATPONS AND RULES. 29 º'
.*
~...~ *
of countesses contending with pistols for the possession of a cour-
tier whose amours and affairs of Honor were so numerous as to
excite our astonishment. -
In England, Elizabeth created Mary, the high-toned wife of
Sir Hugh Cholmondely, a knight; and she was known through-
out the realm as “The Bold Lady of Cheshire.” The queen
herself possessed a most chivalrous spirit. When the negotia-
tions for a matrimonial alliance between her and the Archduke
Charles were finally broken off, by his marriage to a princess of
Austria, the imperial daughter of Henry is said to have ex-
claimed, that, “So great an insult had been offered to her, that,
if she were a man instead of a woman, she would have defied
him to single combat l” These illustrations will suffice, since
others will be found under the heads of Polignac, of Moussin, of
Shrewsbury, and of Hall ; and the boast of Lola Montes, in
1846, that she was a “better shot” than her lover, and would
have fought his antagonist, appears in the notice of the affair be-
tWeen Dujarier and Bouvallen.
_º
C H A P T E R W .
WEAPONs AND RULEs.
THE challenged party, it may be assumed, has always selected
the place, distance, time, and weapons, and has thus, by a choice
designed to be least dangerous to himself, and most hazardous
to his opponent, possessed an advantage. The assistance of sec-
onds, both in the preliminary arrangements and on the ground,
was probably unknown, or at least uncommon, under the Judicial
Duel or Wager of Battle. ~The practice of seconds fighting one
another in behalf of their principals, once frequent in some coun-
tries, has now nearly disappeared. Duels on horseback, which
a century ago were not unusual, are rare at the present time.
The challenging by glove was formerly universal, and in the
history of that article of dress, its use, to throw at the feet of an
offender as a defiance, is stated with some minuteness. Heavy
swords, axes, and spears or lances, with bucklers, were used by
the ancient duellists, whether mounted or on foot/The rapier
--- 3 $ .
*
30 WEAPONS AND RULES.
succeeded ; and, having been approved in Continental Europe,
was introduced into England in the year 1588, and, as it would
seem, by a personage of the name of Rowland Yorke, who is
called a “ desperate traitor’’ for the innovation. Sir Walter
Scott cites from the “Two Angry Women of Abington,” a
comedy printed in 1599, a pathetic complaint upon the sub-
Ject : — /
“Sword and buckler fight begins to grow out of use. I am sorry for
it. I shall never see good manhood again. If it be once gone, this pok-
ing fight of rapier and dagger will come up, then a tall man, and a good
sword and buckler man, will be spitted like a cat or rabbit.”
The pistol followed the rapier, and has become the favorite
weapon ; though the sword is still in fashion in France, and the
gun and rifle are occasionally selected in the United States.
I am not aware that American duellists have ever adopted a
written code, or that the rules among them are entirely uniform;
Certain points, however, are well established. I suppose, for
example, that, in a duel upon a mere question of honor, an ex-
change of shots, whether with or without effect, is sufficient;
while a combat for positive wrong or deep injury may be, and
ordinarily should be, continued until the aggressor offers satisfac-
tory explanation or apology, or until the fall or disability of one
of the parties. s:
Again, it seems to be well settled that the challenged, in the
matters of weapon, time, and distance, shall be governed by
usage between gentlemen ; and that propositions to sit across a
cask of powder, to jump from a precipice or a building, to meet
at midnight, at a lone or distant spot, without friends or surgeons,
may be rejected by the challenger.
Sir Jonah Barrington, in the “Personal Sketches of his Own
Times,” gives part of a code of laws for the government of
duellists, as ordained at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by the
gentlemen delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, and
Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ire-
land. And he observes, that “these Rules brought the whole
business of duelling to a focus, and have been much acted upon
down to the present day.” They were called in Galway “the
thirty-six commandments.” w
I insert twenty-five of these curious “commandments,” with
two “Additional Galway Articles,” for the eye of those who
cannot consult his work. It will be seen that some are still
&
º
.
- .
WEAPONS AND RULES. 31
partially observed, by both principals and seconds, in our own
day.
“RULE 1.
“The first offence requires the first apology, though the retort may
have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is
impertinent, &c.; B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first
apology, because he gave the first offence, and then (after one fire) B
may explain away the retort by subsequent apology.
“ RULE 2.
“But if the parties would rather fight on, then, after two shots each
(but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologizes after-
wards.
“N. B. The above rules apply to all cases of offences in retort not
of a stronger class than the example.
“ RULE 3.
“If a doubt exists who gave the first offence, the decision rests with
the seconds; if they will not decide, or cannot agree, the matter must
proceed to two shots, or to a hit if the challenger require it.
\
“RULE 4.

“When the lie direct is the first offence, the aggressor must either beg
pardon in express terms, exchange two shots previous to an apology, or
three shots followed up by explanation, or fire on till a severe hit be
received by one party or the other.
“RULE 5.
“As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstancés amongst
gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The
alternatives, therefore, are, — the offender handing a cane to the injured
party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon ;
firing on until one or both is disabled; or exchanging three shots and
then asking pardon without the proffer of the cane. If swords are used,
the parties engage till one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or
until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor
asks pardon. -
“N. B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer
may (strictly) break his adversary's sword, but if it be the challenger
who is disarmed it is considered as ungenerous to do so. In case the
challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not
be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the
aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword, and say, “I spare
our life " The challenged can never revive that quarrel,-the chal-
enger may. * . . . . . . . . . . . .
sº-
32 WEAPONS AND RULES.
-in | || || | | | | | | |I|| || || | | 1=
“ RULE 6.
“If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two great-
est offences) no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges
each, or a severe hit; after which B may ask A's pardon for the blow,
and then A may explain simply for the lie, because a blow is never al-
lowable, and the offence of the lie therefore merges in it. (See preced-
ing rule.
T. N. f. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the
ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be
sufficient in such cases, because no personal offence transpired.
“RULE 7.
“But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have
actually taken their ground, without exchange of fires.
“RULE 8.
“In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of
challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before
the meeting. -
“ RULE 9.
“All imputations of cheating at play, races, &c. to be considered
equivalent to a blow, but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting
their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.
“RULE 10.
66 Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be
considered as, by one degree, a greater offence than if given to the gen-
tleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.
“RULE 11.
“Offences originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputa-
tions to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same
class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor. . This to
be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorably
to the lady.
“ RULE 12.
“In simple unpremeditated reneontres with the small-sword, or couteau-
de-chasse, the rule is, first draw, first sheathe, unless blood be drawn;
then both sheathe and proceed to investigate.
“RULE 13.
“No dumb-shooting or firing in the air admissible in any case. The
challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offence, and
the challenged ought, if he gave offence, to have made an apology be-
fore he came on the ground; therefore children's play must be dishon-
orable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

WEAPONs AND RULEs. 33
“RULE 14.
Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend,
inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a princi-
pal, and equality is indispensable.
“RULE 15.
“Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to
be challenged intend leaving the place of offence before morning; for
it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.
“ RULE 16.
“The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the
challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however,
he cannot decline any second species of weapon proposed by the chal-
lenged.
“ RULE 17.
“The challenged chooses the ground; the challenger chooses his dis-
tance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing. -
“ RULE, 18.
“The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their
mutual honors that they have charged smooth and single, which should
be held sufficient. **
- “ RULE 19.
“Firing may be regulated, first, by signal; secondly, by word of com-
mand; or thirdly, at pleasure, — as may be agreeable to the parties. In
the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but sec-
ond presents and rests are strictly prohibited.
w “ RULE 20.
“In all cases a misfire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or a non-
cock is to be considered as a misfire.
“RULE, 21.
“Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting
takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.
“ RULE 22.
“Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make
the hand shake, must end the business for that day.
“ RULE 23.
“If the cause of meeting be of such a nature that no apology or ex-
planation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and
calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses. In such cases, firing
at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.
\
A

34 WEAPONS AND RULES.
|:
-
>*t
;
-*
e
“ RULE 24.
“In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in
gross cases two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.
“ RULE 25.
“Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves,
it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals,
thus : —
S.

S.
If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.
“N. B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be ex-
plained and cleared up by application to the Committee, who meet
alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the Quarter Sessions, for that
purpose. -
“CROW RYAN, President.
JAMES KEQGH, sº, : ..., 35
AMBY BODKIN, eCratarzeS.
Additional Galway Articles.
“RULE 1.
“No party can be allowed to bend his knee or cover his side with his
left hand; but may present at any level from the hip to the eye.
“RULE 2.
“None can either advance or retreat if the ground be measured. If
no ground be measured, either party may advance at his pleasure, even
to touch muzzle; but neither can advance on his adversary after the
fire, unless the adversary steps forward on him. -
“N. B. The seconds on both sides stand responsible for this last
rule being strictly observed, bad cases having occurred from neglecting
of it.” -
TRIWIAL CAUSES OF DUELS. 35
C H A P T E R W I.
TRIVIAL CAUSEs of DUELs. – DISGRACEFUL AND RIDICULOUS DUELS.
TRIVIAL CAUSES OF DUELS.
WHoEveR considers the trivial disputes that have ended in
hostile meetings between gentlemen, will recall the story told of
a Neapolitan nobleman, who fought fourteen duels to prove that
Dante was a greater poet than Ariosto, and who, on his death-bed,
admitted to his confessor that he had never read the works of
either. These pages contain details that, were not life and death
involved, would excite ridicule and contempt.
Thus, a French knight cried aloud that his mistress was more
beautiful than any Englishwoman, and was slain by an English-
man for the speech: — two French nobles could not agree whether
a certain letter on some embroidery was an X, or a Y, and so got
up a duel of six against six, to determine their difference : —
one marquis owed another marquis the sum of fifteen shillings, and
settled the score with his sword:—a royal duke, curious to see
the features of a lady at a masked ball, lifted the disguise from
the fair one's face, and atoned for the act by a combat with an-
other royal duke : — two men of fashion who entertained a pas-
sion for a married lady who cared for neither, fought because
one crushed the card of the other in her presence : — a member
of Parliament was called “a Jacobite,” and lost his life “in sat-
isfaction ” for the affront : — a great statesman, whose father was
a manufacturer, was pertly spoken of as “the son of a cotton-
jenny,” and should have smiled at the wit of his lawless accuser,
but, though despising him, acknowledged equality by sending a
challenge : — a lovely and accomplished wife became a widow
and a maniac, because her husband, in conversation with a
brother officer, defended our countrymen from the charge of
cowardice in the war of the Revolution: — an English gentle-
man of noble family, and heir to a dukedom, met a man in mor-
tal strife whom he had never so much as seen or heard of,
merely because he had “a call ”: — a nobleman and a member
of the House of Commons “tried conclusions” with pistols, be-
cause the horse of the former, on coronation-day, approached the
royal presence tail-foremost, and the latter made sport of the
36 TRIVIAL CAUSES OF DUELS.
circumstance in the columns of a newspaper: — a brother, so-
licitous for the honor of a sister who boarded at a house in which
a man lived in open adultery with the wife of another, was killed
for his “impertinent interference”: — a nobleman addressed an
intimate friend by a nickname, – as he had done for years, –
gave offence, was called out, and slain : — a gentleman, as was
“imagined,” cast an “impertinent look " towards one of his asso-
ciates in a ball-room, and satisfied the ideal wrong with his life :
—an earl and an officer in the army fought about debt incurred
at the gaming-table: — two barristers met who had never spoken
in their lives, the challenged party accepting the call solely be-
cause public sentiment would not allow him to decline without
disgrace : — two persons, who at the bar and elsewhere obtained
enviable distinction, engaged in a duel upon the issue, whether
“Ireland was a nation easily roused and easily appeased " : —
a celebrated traveller who listened to, and endeavored to recon-
cile, a quarrel between two strangers whom he accidentally met,
relieved himself from difficulty only by measuring swords with
one of them : — a member of a city government, offended with
a public speaker who said the corporation was “a beggarly cor-
poration,” would not listen to explanation, insisted upon a meet-
ing, was gratified, and was a victim to his sensibility: — two
statesmen, who subsequently became prime-ministers, placed
themselves on the roll of duellists for a cause which, in the judg-
ment of their friends, involved the honor of neither, and which
exposed both to censure : — the manner of saying, “Yes, I do,”
in answer to a question, was the sole offence which cost one of.
ficer his life in a duel, and the survivor his life upon a gallows:
— a gallant marquis challenged a noble earl for general but dis-
respectful mention of his country: — a naval officer who cap-
tured an enemy’s fleet met one who had served under him,
“entirely,” he said, “as an atonement for the violated rules of
the service ’’: — a witness in a court of justice gave testimony
which offended a party in interest, and was slain on the “field of
honor”: — the dog of an officer of rank who was the pride of the
army, and the dog of a captain in the navy who had proved his
courage-in many hard-fought battles, snarled and growled, and
so the two gentlemen, to settle the quarrel between their curs,
quarrelled themselves, and would not be appeased until one of
them fell by the hand of the other: — a gentleman remarked
that “he believed ” an associate had “a personal pique against
him,” was challenged, and slew his adversary: — two military
DISGRACEFUL AND RIDICULOUS IDUELS. 37
men engaged in mortal combat, because a third person thought
he could recall some “light words” which one of them had
spoken against his fellow : — and last of all, and more absurd
than all, an aid of the illustrious Commander-in-chief chal-
lenged and fought the general second in rank in the army of the
Revolution, upon no difference of his own, but simply—solely—
to prove to the generation to which they belonged, and to pos-
terity, that Washington as an officer was equal to the station
which he filled, and as a private gentleman was entitled to
consideration and respect
DISGRACEFUL AND RIDICULOUS IDUELS.
An agreement to fight to the death, and a challenge from a
father to a son, or the converse, were denounced three centuries
ago, as disgraceful to knighthood. To fight with one loaded and
one empty pistol, at one pace distance, the parties drawing lots
for a choice between the weapons; to kiss the lips of a person
mortally ill of an infectious disease, instead of meeting death in
the field; to fight naked, or in the lower garments only ; to fight
when principals, or seconds, or both, are drunk; to curse and
swear on the ground, or taunt an antagonist with illegitimacy, or
domestic or pecuniary misfortune ; to fight with pistols over-
lapping each other; to prepare a sumptuous feast, and invite
friends far and near to partake of it, at the close of a combat in
which it has been resolved that the adverse party shall be slain;
to fight in utter darkness, whether in the open air, or in a room,
or with lamps or lanterns; to purposely meet in a lone spot, where
it is known that no assistance can be obtained ; to reject the
opinion of friends to whom an affair has been intrusted; to in-
sist upon fighting after the aggressor has made usual, and in the
judgment of seconds satisfactory atonement, — are all practices
equally disgraceful to knighthood, and, though discountenanced
by true gentlemen, are not wholly unknown in modern duelling.
On the other hand, we have duels which excite a smile ; as,
for example, that between Sir Jonah Barrington and Richard
Daly, and that between Somerset Butler and Peter Burrowes.
Nor are mock-combats at the present day of rare occurrence,
either in the British Isles or in America. It was stated by a
member of Parliament, at a vast assemblage of the friends of
peace, in 1853, that, from facts in his possession, he had not the
least reason to doubt that the “practice had become common "
\
38 OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEN.
for the seconds to load the pistols of the principals with an arti-
cle which deceives the eye, but which, when the ram-rod is used,
is pressed to pieces and into a sort of dust. Perhaps the honorable
member, in employing the term “common,” overstated the ex-
act truth, but there cannot be a doubt, that friends sometimes sol-
emnly arrange for bloodless contests. Omitting details, and the
mention of particular cases, I will barely add, that several well-
authenticated accounts are before me, and that one instance — ri-
diculous to the last degree — occurred under my own personal
observation, between a British officer and a gentleman who is
now in holy orders. -
C H A P T E R W II.
OPINIONs of EMINENT MEN. — PUBLIC SENTIMENT.
OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEN.
DUELLING is not without its advocates, both on the ground of
expediency and of right. But it is to be remarked, that very
many men of distinguished consideration utter their approval in
terms of qualification and with conditions. Addison and Steele
were, I think, personally opposed to the custom, and most read-
ers of the Spectator and Tatler will agree with me in the conclu-
sion; but yet, in a joint essay in the latter paper, they state that,
as the practice had “become a law,” they did not “know how
a gentleman could avoid a duel, if he were provoked to it.”
Oglethorpe, the founder of the State of Georgia, and a military
officer of great merit, in reply to a question upon the subject,
said, “Undoubtedly a man has a right to defend his honor”:
but we find that he was slow to take offence, and that, during a
long life of public service, no occasion occurred which required
him “to defend his honor.” Adam Ferguson, Professor of
Morals in the University of Edinburgh, allows that a duel may be
innocently fought in certain cases, but calls them “exceptions *
to the common rule; and illustrates his views by the extreme
wrongs of “a woman who is forcibly attacked in her chastity,”
or of “a man who is put to the trial of personal estimation or
honor,” and whose injuries “the utmost power of the magistrate
*
OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEN. 39
cannot afterward repair.” Lord Kaimes was unable to discover
any crime on either side in a duel when no “satisfaction,” or
“proper satisfaction,” is offered to an affronted party, on the one
hand, and when the “person who gave the affront has offered
what he thinks full satisfaçtion,” on the other ; but, as will be
admitted on a moment's iºn, a combat under such circum-
stances can rarely take place. Sir James Mackintosh remarks,
that “ duelling is among us a disputed case, though the improve-
ment of manners has rendered it so much more infrequent, that
it is likely in time to lose its support from opinion ”; and allow-
ing us at least to infer, that the class of gentlemen with whom he
mingled were divided in sentiment, while he himself belonged to
the party that hoped for an entire abolition of it. The views of
Dr. Johnson are far less equivocal than either of the preceding
writers, since, according to Boswell, he defended duelling in re-
peated conversations. It has been contended that the learned
critic and lexicographer did not utter his real convictions, but
talked to his listeners to please, and as the humor moved him at
the moment. With all deference, I shall take no pains to ascer-
tain whether his sober thought was in agreement with his words,
or the converse; for I have frankly to declare, that, upon a ques-
tion of morals, I entertain no respect whatever for the opinion of
the man, who, in answer to the memorable Resolutions and Ad-
dress of the Continental Congress of 1775, wrote that infamous
tract, “ Taa’ation no Tyranny.” -
We turn to other eminent personages who have borne testi-
mony against the custom. Passing the flippant speech of Dean
Swift, that all duellists are “fools,” we may pause in admiration
at the conduct of the historian Gibbon, who, when informed that
two of his friends had agreed to repair to the field, interposed, on
the noble principle that the acknowledgment of a real fault is
never injurious to one's honor, and that an offender who offers
an apology or explanation is a true gentleman; and , succeeded
in adjusting the difficulty between them. ZFranklin, compressing
the whole argument into a single expression, said that “A DUEL.
DECIDES NOTHING,” and that a person appealing to it “makes
himself judge in his own cause, condemns the offender without"
a jury, and undertakes himself to be the executioner.” I
i-Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, already mentioned as one of the
great statesmen of the United States, after the fall of Hamilton,
endeavored to induce the Cincinnati of the different States, in a
body, to speak their “abhorrence of the practice,” and to deter-
*
40 OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEN.
mine “on no account either to send or accept a challenge,” as
the best means to “abolish it throughout the Union.”; and not
content with this, he drafted and circulated in his own State a
memorial to the Legislature for the passage of a restraining
statute, and invoked the clergy of South Carolina, “as a particu-
lar favor, at some convenient early day, to preach a sermon on
the sin and folly of duelling.”
The notes of similar testimony before me, stated in the brief.
est form, would fill a long chapter ; but a proposition to which
most reasonable men assent, needs only to be suggested. I can-
not forbear, however, in concluding the topic, to ask the reader's
attention to the declarations of Hamilton, of Graham, Hillas,
Decatur, and Thomas, which are to be found in the appropriate
places, as the solemn averments of men who, while they could
not boast, with the great Earl of Huntly, that “they never drew a
sword in their own quarrel,” yet went to their doom the victims
of circumstances which, unfortunately, they did not dare to resist,
at the loss of their professional and social position. Nor can I
forbear to mention, that, whatever the example and opinion of
|Mr. Clay at one period of his life, we have the sentiment of his
old age, in the remark in the Senate, that “no man would "be
happier than himself to see the whole barbarous system for ever
eradicated.” Nor would it be just to other members of the Sen-
ate to forget the fact, that, in 1838, the bill to prevent and punish
duelling in the District of Columbia passed that body with a sin-
gle dissenting vote; or just to the memory of the late President
Taylor to omit to record his emphatic refusal to restore two
officers of the Navy who had been dismissed the service for
an offence under the duello, accompanied with the statement to
his Cabinet, that he had served in the Army forty years without
fighting, that duels were unnecessary, that he would discoun-
tenance them on every occasion, and that “he would have no
duelling men about him if he could help it.” Nor ought I to
overlook the hopeful circumstance, that, in 1849, a Professor of
Law in Kentucky, in his valedictory address to a graduating
class, denounced the practice in the strongest terms, “as rude
and coarse, and full of horrid crime ’’; and least of all should I
fail to remember the lofty stand of Mr. Rhett, who, in 1852, in
the Senate of the United States, in answer to the defiance of a
Senator from another State, avowed that he was a member of a
Christian church, that he would not dishonor his religious pro-
fession by going to the field to avenge an insult, that “he feared
PUBLIC SENTIMENT. 41
God more than man,” and that “true courage is best evinced by
the firm maintenance of our principles amidst all temptations
was arraigned and punished for stifling a little bird that had taken
refuge in his bosom, because the act was a crime against human-
ity; but in the nineteenth century of the Christian era there were
gentlemen of high consideration who sneered at sentiments so in
unison with the principles of the heathen Court of Areopagus, as
pronounced by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina,
in the presence of his peers; yet there were thousands who, as
the press bore his words over the country, forgetting their want
of sympathy in his political doctrines, felt to say : —
“Honor to him, who, self-complete and brave
In scorn, can carve his pathway to the grave;
And, heeding naught of what men think or say,
Make his own heart his world upon the way.”
PUBLIC SENTIMENT.
Duelling, as everybody knows, is a relic of the Dark Ages.
Among the ignorant and superstitious people with whom it origi-
nated, and even under the institutions of chivalry, there may have
been some excuse for it. But in the present state of civilization
it cannot be justified; and this is the common remark. Yet it is
still prevalent to an alarming extent, and simply because war-
worn veterans who are covered with scars, and judges in robes,
and clergymen in surplices, and statesmen who lead legislative
bodies or preside in cabinet councils, continue to afford it either
their example or countenance. Such men form and direct pub-
lic opinion, and can put an end to duelling at once and for ever.
Gentlemen in other walks in life, of lofty sense of honor and of
nice sensibility, feel compelled to send and accept hostile mes-
sages, contrary to their own judgment and sense of right, to avoid
disgrace, and because they dare not reveal their abhorrence of
the custom, in opposition to persons of superior rank or influence,
I shall not soon forget a conversation with a friend who had
fought to save himself from ruin. He was the challenged party,
he said, and was too poor to decline ; he must fight, starve, or
remove to the North ; the alternatives were dreadful; he ac-
cepted the call, horror-stricken, for he sinned against his own
conscience, and with the eye of God fixed, as it seemed to him,
intently upon him. 'The account of others is that this gen-
4
42 PUBLIC SENTIMIENT.
tleman when on the ground bore himself most gallantly. His
name is often spoken in New England, and I have heard him
stigmatizéd as “a duellist,” and as thus “unworthy of respect.”
It is not so. I know him intimately, and bear willing witness
that, in the circle of my friends, there is not one more exem-
plary in his daily life, or who, in my judgment, strives more
earnestly to conform to the rules of Christian duty. In another
instance, I recall the remark of a personage of high rank in
one of the planting States, who, in reply to an observation
touching the two marked distinctions between Northern and
Southern institutions, rejoined, “True, but which do you think
the worst, — black men in bondage to white men, or white men in
bondage to the pistol 2 ” We of the non-duelling States plume
ourselves upon our freedom from the barbarous practice, and
claim that we are so in consequence of our superior morality;
but I have yet to be convinced that we owe our exemption to any
such difference. Let Northern members of Congress agree in a
body that personalities in debate, – let husbands, and fathers,
and brothers, associate, that the seduction of wives, and daugh-
ters, and sisters, – let gentlemen, generally, resolve that slan-
derous or impertinent words, – shall hereafter be avenged in
private combat, and duels would become as frequent among us
as anywhere else. Public sentiment is omnipotent; and, to use
a homely expression, is “manufactured to order ’’ by a few
prominent men in every community. The Roundheads of Eng-
land, from whom we are descended, could justly plead religious.
scruples in answer to cartels from the Cavaliers, for they con-
formed to no customs, indulged in no fashions, inconsistent with
an austere, with a self-denying faith. But it is sheer hypocrisy
in us, as a people, to aver that we are restrained from the use of
the pistol by principle. At home it is honorable to appeal to the
tribunals to redress every wrong, and judges and juries are our
|common arbiters. Abroad, we forget law and appeal to lead, as
often as others; and some of the most desperate duels mentioned
in this volume were fought by New England men, in obedience
to the sentiment around them.
Public opinion, it hardly need be said to the well-informed
reader, rules the statute-book. In England, killing in a duel,
whether by peer or commoner, is murder. These pages contain
the names of many noble duellists who slew their antagonists;
but though three of them — Lords Mohun, Warwick, and By-
ron—were tried, not one was punished. For a period of nearly
f
}
|
PUBLIC SENTIMENT. 43
seventy years succeeding the last of these attempted examples,
not a single peer was so much as put upon trial ; and the case
of Lord Cardigan, in 1841, who was arraigned for shooting at
Captain Tuckett, embraces the whole account of judicial pro-
ceedings against noblemen who have been engaged in affairs of
honor. Commoners have escaped with the same impunity. In
Scotland, there has not been a single conviction for a century
and a half. In England, during the last two hundred years, there
may have been twelve or fifteen verdicts of murder by juries,
but there has not been one execution of a survivor who killed his
adversary in accordance with usage, or under the duello; while
in the cases of unfair fighting, Major Campbell, and two or three
others, have alone suffered the extreme penalty of the law. In
fine, the courts have been mere umpires to interfere in “foul
play.” The judges have not always commenced life, as did
Lord Norbury, “with fifty pounds and a pair of hair-trigger pis-
tols’’; nor have they always provided seconds, as did one of
them in the fatal combat between Boswell and Stuart; nor have
twelve magistrates always been passive spectators of a fight, as
were that exact number in the savage duel between Colclough
and Alcock; nor have the presiding judges always told juries, as
did Fletcher, “Gentlemen, it is my business to lay down the law
to you, and I shall do so: where two persons go out to fight a
duel, and one of them falls, the law says it is murder, and I tell
you by law it is murder, but at the same time a fairer duel I
never heard of in the whole course of my life "; but still I fear
that these instances illustrate, with some approach to truth, the
general feeling of the Bench of the British Isles in all past time ;
and it is scarcely an exaggeration to add, that witnesses, judges,
juries, prosecuting officers, and the higher advisers of the crown,
have united to prevent punishments under the laws against duel-
ling. The consolation is, that duels in these isles are now rare
between persons who give a direction to public sentiment.
In the United States, as in England, killing in a duel is mur-
der; but here, as there, OPINION is superior to LAw. Bennett,
as far as I have been able to ascertain, is the only person who
has been executed for taking the life of a fellow-man in single
combat since we became a free people. In some States, the
parties have seldom been held even to answer ; in others, the
inquiry in the courts has been confined to the single question of
the “fairness of the fight”; and this point determined in favor
of the survivor, acquittal has-followed as a matter of course.
44 DUBLIC SENTIMENT.
In one State, we find the judge of a court on the duelling
ground as a principal; in another, an ex-governor is there as a
second ; in a third, we read of principals and seconds, attended
by an immense concourse in carriages, on horseback, and on
foot, passing through one of the largest cities, on their way to
the appointed spot, without hindrance on the part of the magis-
trates ; in a fourth, we are told of the deafening shout of the
assembled crowd at the fall of both the combatants ; and in a
fifth, the judicial record shows the mockery of a sentence, against
the parties who had completed their arrangements for a mortal
strife, of a fine of one dollar and an imprisonment of one minute.
Yet in these five States there are not only statute laws but con-
stitutional provisions in the books adverse to this relic of the
Dark Ages. We of the North denounce individual gentlemen,
who meet one another to adjust their personal or political differ-
ences, in terms measured only by our respective powers of
anathema, and we do wrong; for we forget that, if a gentleman
at the South refuses to send or accept a challenge, he loses his
position in society, and is sometimes shunned and hunted down.
We should be just, even in our maledictions. It is not the indi-
vidual man whom we should assail, but the PUBLIC OPINION
which with its imperative voice demands him to hold his weapon
at the breast of his fellow. It is not from choice, but in obedi-
ence to the tyrant CUSTOM, that persons who, until some trivial
dispute severed, had ever loved one another, meet to main and
slay. Nor is duelling a criterion of bravery. Charles Cotes-
worth Pinckney, of South Carolina, and one of the first charac-
ters of his time in America, said that he had “seen "cowards
fight duels; and Curran, in the exuberance of his wit, speaks of
one of his antagonists who died in three weeks after their meet-
ing, “ of the report of his own pistol.”
SIN AND ABSURDITY OF DUET,LING. 45
CHAPTE R v III.'
REFLECTIONS ON THE Eve OF A DUEL. — SIN AND ABSURDITY OF
DUELLING. — REMORSE OF DUELLISTs.
REFLECTIONS ON THE EVE OF A DUEL.
I HAVE somewhere read that Moreau made, and Wellington
assented to, the remark, that commanders of large armies, how-
ever brave, weighed down by moral anxiety and reasonings upon
the uncertainties of the result, hesitate, after all their combina-
tions and arrangements have been completed, to make the final
movement to bring on a battle. How similar the condition of
statesmen and military men of distinction, when on the eve of
private battle, – the parting line to the unconscious wife sealed;
the will executed and concealed from curious eyes; the thought
of the dread event of the morrow and its issue ; the resolution
taken to reserve fire, or not to wound in a mortal part ; and the
last conversation for the night with the only friends intrusted
with the momentous secret ! What were the emotions of Thur-
low, rapidly advancing at the bar, and with the vision of the Great
Seal and the Wool-sack before him of Canning, struggling for
the premiership, but scorned by the aristocracy for the lowly
position in life of his true-hearted and exemplary mother l of
Pitt, whose ambitious policy grasped at bounding and balancing
the kingdoms of all Europe 1 of Hamilton, the pride and hope of
a hemisphere, and the “disciple on whose bosom " Washington
had “leaned ”! of Clay, as chivalrous as the ancient Bayard him-
self, and taunted to madness by the ferocity and malignity of party
calumny l of Deeatur, gallant and generous to knight-errantry,
yet pushed by malign influences to wrong a professional brother
already crushed by an administration to conceal its own indo-
lence and remissness
SIN AND ABSURDITY OF DUELLING.
An elaborate argument to prove the WICKEDNEss of the cus-
tom is unnecessary, for that is admitted everywhere, and quite
as often and as frankly among its unfortunate victims as among
others. Nor, in omitting a discussion on the point thus generally
conceded, shall I so far yield to the popular voice in some sec-
*
46 SIN AND ABSURDITY OF DUELLING.
tions of the country, as to say that, as a class, “duellists are
murderers ”; since it were as just, in my judgment, to pronounce
the sentence of self-murder against those of the other sex who,
by their course of life, produce consumption and premature de-
cease. Both are the victims of FASHION. Society in the former
case loads, presents, and fires pistols, to shoot husbands and fa-
thers and brothers; and in the latter, by its imperative laws to
regulate the form and materials of dress, the hours of visiting,
the articles of food or entertainment, and the manner of employ-
ing time, commits wives and daughters and sisters to untimely
graves. Is it not so * !
The unconditional ABSURDITY of duelling, as a means of re-
dress, may be shown in a passing word. If, under the commer-
cial code, a rich but unprincipled merchant owes me a debt
which he refuses to pay, and I propose to give him an acquit-
tance on his consenting that, attended by our clerks, we meet
and shoot at one another, or if, under the crimnal code, I should
agree not to arrest the man who had entered my dwelling, and
robbed me of my family plate and pictures, on condition that he
would fight me, everybody would see and exclaim against the
foolishness of my conduct. Yet I should act on the precise rule
of the code of honor.
Without dwelling on the minor offences, we will take for an
illustration the crime of female seduction, which wounds the
friends of the victim to madness, and which is sometimes com-
mitted under circumstances that almost justify the most summary
punishment. But how is it possible to efface the family stigma,
in a combat with the seducer 2 Could the fallen daughter or sis-
ter be restored, or were it certain that the aggressor would be
shot, then something might be gained ; but as it is, and in the
nature of things ever must be, a male protector, if he send a
challenge which is accepted, not only places himself on an equal-
ity with a scoundrel, but may himself be slain, and thus cause
fresh anguish at the fireside already polluted by lust.
Again, if the father or chief protector of a single family is
bound to “demand satisfaction ” of the betrayer of his hearth-
stone, why may not the father or chief protector of all the fam-
ilies of a nation be held to challenge the betrayer of his coun-
try 2 and why, hence, ought not Washington to have risked the
most valuable life of the last century against Benedict Arnold,
one of the most worthless lives of all centuries 2 The principle
in the two cases is the same, beyond all denial; for the question
g
!
f
&
REMORSE OF DUELLISTS. 47
is not whether the infamous betrayer of confiding woman or the
infamous political traitor shall escape from the “deep damna-
tion” of mankind, but whether, after the wrong be perpetrated,
a mode of punishment shall be selected which gives no redress
to the sufferers, and which, puts the innocent and the guilty on an
equal footing.
REMORSE OF D'UELLISTS.
This is a painful theme. In the notices entitled Camelford,
William Barrington, O'Connell, and Colclough, the reader will
find details to move his feelings. But these are only examples.
A gentleman of wide observation, who has always lived in a du-
elling section of the United States, and who has taken much
pains to inquire into the mental condition of every person who
had slain an adversary, remarked, that not a single instance had
come to his knowledge which did not afford him proof, that
peace of mind was for ever destroyed. The same sad intelli-
gence has been derived from others; and as the result of my in-
quiries, I can truly say, that the narratives which I have read and
to which I have listened have uniformly reminded me of the
words of the Psalmist: “ Turn thee unto me, and have mercy
upon me : for I am desolate and in misery.”
Addison, in the Spectator, refers to Thornhill (who slew Sir
Cholmly Dering) under the translated name of Spinamont, and
possibly gives us the substance of what fell from the lips of
the unhappy survivor in an address to the imaginary King Phar-
amond : “I come not,” he says, “O excellent prince, to im-
plore your pardon ; I come not to relate my sorrow, a sorrow
too great for human life to support”; and again, “Know, then,
that I have this morning killed in a duel the man whom of all
men living I most loved.” Dante, in his Hell, describes the suf-
ferings of the damned in words that cause us to shudder; but
unless we doubt the veracity of some of the first characters in
the country, the poet's inexhaustible imagination fails to express
the wretchedness of most of the living men whose “feet have
slipped in gore.” Some utter unceasingly,
“My own life wearied me!
And but for the imperátive voice within,
With mine own hand I had thrown off the burden.”
Others, men of gentle and affectionate nature, who had often
48 REMORSE of DUELLISTs.
grieved at the wanton killing of a bird, and on whose bosom wife
and children nestled, - with the blood of a husband and a father
upon their hands, – dwell, in their woe, upon the thought that
“Not all the blessings of a host of angels
Can blow away a desolate widow's curse !— *
And though thou spill thy heart's blood for atonement,
It will not weigh against an orphan's tear !”
Still others, the nervous system shattered, the whole of the phys-
ical or intellectual powers weakened or destroyed, see and hear
their victim in every passing object, or whisper of the wind; and,
as time wears on, sink into hopeless imbecility or raving madness.
I forbear the mention of particular names and instances of
either class, for obvious reasons; but such has been the fate of
many pure and highly gifted men who have passed away, of
many who yet survive. For, say what we will, facts show that
persons of the most eminent worth, and most hopeful talents, are
oftenest involved in duels. There are, indeed, fiends who howl
for blood like ravening wolves, who, because national peace pre-
vents its flow in streams, seek their life long to lap it in drops
from the breast of individuals. But let no one believe that even
such men are strangers to remorse. The fire is lighted, and
slowly consuming them; nor can the shout which these men
send up at the midnight carouse, from brothels and drinking and
gambling hells, conceal its progress from keen and searching
eyes. t g
“Remorse is as the heart in which it grows;
If that be gentle, it drops balmy dews
Of true repentance; but if proud and gloomy,
It is a poison tree, that, pierced to the inmost,
Weeps only tears of poison.”
O HAL LENGES AND DU ELS.
AccorAMBONI, Marquis of See Bruce, James.
ACKLAND and LLOYD. In England, during the
American Revolution. Both were officers in the British army;
the first, a major, the latter, a lieutenant. Ackland was shot
through the head, and Lady Harriet, his wife, was bereft of
her reason for two years. Ackland, in defending the Ameri-
cans from the charge of cowardice, gave Lloyd the lie direct;
hence the meeting. •
ADAIR, a general in the war of the Revolution. The
following story is related in Graydon's Memoirs. Every gen-
tleman of Adair's standing may, if he have the courAGE to
do so, adopt the same course. -
“A young officer, conceiving himself aggrieved, challenged the vet-
eran, who took no notice of the matter. A second note was the ºx
sequence, in which Adair was informed, that, if “satisfaction’ were
not accorded, he would “post’ him as a coward | The General
then replied, in substance, that he might proceed, but assuredly in so
doing he would “post’ himself a ‘fool and a liar,” as certainly no
man would believe him.” - * _*
ADAM, Member of Parliament. See Foa, Charles James.
ADoLPHUs, son of Duke of Guelderland. See Guelderland,
Duke of -.
AGAR, JAMEs, and HENRY FLooD. In Ireland, in the year
1770. One account is, that the duel grew out of an election
contest, and that Flood was not to blame; that there had been
a previous duel between them, in which Agar was slightly
5 - -
50 CHALLENGES AND DUELs.
wounded in the arm ; and that Agar thought proper to revive
the quarrel. In this (the second duel) Agar was shot through
the heart. He seems to have been a very intemperate man,
and even on the ground could not refrain from language the
most insulting and unwarrantable. Flood was tried for murder
at the Kilkenny assizes: the jury found a verdict of “man-
slaughter in his own defence.” In the Life and Times of Grat-
tan, the affair is thus stated : —
“My dear Harry, - I must postpone every other topic to inform you,
that on Friday last a duel was fought between Harry Flood and Mr.
Agar the elder, in Dunmore Park, near Kilkenny, in which Mr. Agar
was unfortunately killed. As Mr. Flood was not the challenger, and as
it was out of his power to avoid it, he has nothing to reproach himself
with. The cause was a case of pistols belonging to Mr. Agar, which
one Keogh lost at Burn Church, in the riot about ten months ago. I
hear that the unfortunate gentleman had often asked Mr. Flood about
them, who always said “that he had them not, and was not accountable
for them.” But on Friday they produced a challenge, to my great sur-
prise; for if there were any offence, it was as much an offence any day
these ten months as it was on that day. They stood at about fourteen
yards asunder. Before they fired, Mr. Agar questioned Mr. Flood
about the pistols, in a threatening and offensive manner. Mr. Flood
answered very deliberately, ‘You know I will not answer you while
you ask me in that manner.” Mr. G. Bushe, who was Mr. Flood's friend,
said something to Mr. Agar to induce him to ask in another manner,
and not to bring such an affair upon himself so needlessly; but without
effect. He laid down one pistol, and rested the other upon his arm to
take his aim. Both Mr. G. B. and Mr. Roth, his own friend, called to
him to fire fairly. (N. B. Besides the unfairness of using a rest, it
was particularly unfair at that time, for Mr. A. had proposed they
should stand alongside a quickset hedge, but Mr. Roth declared “there
should be no levelling.’. Upon their calling out he desisted, and took
another posture, and fired first and missed. He then took up his other
pistol, and then said to Mr. Flood, “Fire, you scoundrell’ Mr. Flood
thereupon presented his pistol, which he held all this time with the muz-
zle turned upwards, and shot Mr. A. through the heart. Mr. A.'s left
breast was towards him, Mr. A. being left-handed. He expired in a .
few minutes without speaking anything articulate. The coroners have
: the verdict specially, ‘That he came to his death by a pistol-
ullet.’” z -
Agoult, Count of See Conde, Prince of
Aguesseau, Mons. SEGUR 'D', and Mons. BERTHoLon. In
France, in 1849, with pistols The seconds of the first were
M. Piscatory and M. St. Jean d’Angely: of Bertholon, M. Was-
seur and M. Cholat. The parties escaped without harm; but
\
^.
i
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 51
Bertholon's pistol was broken by his adversary's ball. The two
principals immediately appeared in the Assembly as if nothing
had occurred. The meeting was caused by an angry discussion
in the Legislative Assembly, of which the following is presumed
to be a correct account. Words spoken in debate often occasion
duels in France, at the present time, and as notice of several
will be found in this volume, the scene of November 21, 1849,
is here related to serve for all. Premising that, on the 16th, a
bill granting an additional salary to a high functionary was re-
jected, and that the debate on that day was conducted with much
acrimony, we come at once to the proceedings five days after-
wards. x
M. Crémieux asked the Minister of the Interior if the Government
contemplated to make a provision for the wounded of February, their
widows and orphans. M. Ferdinand Barrot replied, that in the course
of two or three days he would present to the Assembly two projects of
law, one relative to the wounded of February, and the other relative
to those of June. M. Ségur d'Aguesseau then rose, and asked the
Minister if the brave Municipal Guards, the only combatants of Feb-
ruary, were entitled to national sympathy, - were included in the
distribution of the relief fund 2 This interpolation produced a fearful
storm. The whole of the Left cried with one voice to the President, to
call M. d'Aguesseau to order. M. Beaune ascended the tribune, but
was unable to obtain a hearing. The President violently rang the bell
without being able to restore silence. Several voices of the Mountain
cried, “Down with the Royalist; he insulted the Republic. Call him
to order.” The President, however, refused to obey the injunction,
insisting on M. Ségur d'Aguesseau's right to address questions to the
Minister. The greatest agitation continued on the Left, most of whose
members stood up gesticulating and shouting, whilst others descended
into the hemicycle. Silence having been at last restored, the President
said that M. d'Aguesseau had taken him by surprise. He should have
previously apprised him of his intentions, as M. Faucher had done.
This explanation did not satisfy the Left, who, with redoubled vehe-
mence, urged the President to call M. d’Aguesseau to order. M.
Beaune, having ascended the tribune, personally assailed M. d’Agues-
seau, whom he denounced as a tool of the contemptible government
of Louis Philippe. Interrupted at every word by cries of “Order”
from the Right, he was called to order for an expression which escaped
us amidst the noise and confusion. M. Beaune, then turning round
towards M. Dupin, exclaimed, “You are the Procureur-General of the
majority, and not the President of the Assembly.” M. Dupin called
him a second time to order, but on this occasion with censure, when the
whole of the Left clamorously demanded to be included in the censure."
The President, however, having put the order of the day to the vote, it
was adopted by a considerable majority, and the Left saluted the decision
---------- ====== -- - - - - - - , , - - - -
52 CHALLENGES AND DUELs.
with cries of “Down with the conspirators! Vive la Republique !” The
tumult here reached its highest pitch, when the President (turning to-
wards the extremity of the Montagne) called thirty of the most turbu-
lent to order. M. Bertholon, one of them, then rose and objected to
that irregular mode of proceeding of the President. Those, he said,
whom he ought to call to order, were the men who disturbed the delib-
erations of the Assembly by their Royalist manifestations, their factious
language, and their appeal to civil war. (“Bravo” on the Left.) M.
Segur d'Aguesseau, who had hitherto quietly remained seated during
the whole tumult, here ascended the tribune, and said that, having come
to the Assembly with the honest and serious intention of founding a
regular republic, he considered as calumniators those who had ascribed
to his words a Royalist character. He had, on the contrary, acted as a
true republican. (Expostulations on the Left.) “My interrupters,”
continued M. d’Aguesseau, “ or rather my calumniators, forget that it
was on my motion the entire Assembly rose on the 28th of May last,
and joined in the cry of ‘Vive la Republique!' The majority desires a
republic different from the one dreamed of by another portion of the
Assembly (pointing to the Left), and I glory in the sentiments which ex-
cited their displeasure.” (Loud cries on the Left.) M. d'Aguesseau,
having descended from the tribune, was succeeded by M. Lagrange, who
declared that, for his part, he would not accept the opprobrious epithet
of calumniator; that it was an insult offered the Assembly and the en-
tire of France. -
AGUILAR, Don ALFONso, a Spanish noble. Intended duel, in
1470, with another Castilian nobleman, in presence of the king
of Granada. Aguilar failed to appear. His adversary fastened
his portrait to the tail of the horse on which he was mounted,
and rode round the lists in triumph.
AIGNAN, ST., Mons. See Frettes, La.
ALABAMA. Constitutional provision : —
“The General Assembly shall have power to pass such penal laws to
suppress the evil practice of duelling, extending to disqualification from
office, or the terror thereof, as they may deem expedient.”
ALBA, Duke of. See Soule, Neville.
ALBEMARLE, Lord. See Townshend, George.
ALcock, . See Colclough.
ALDworTH, WILLIAM. See Buckingham, Owen. -
ALDworTH, , Member of Parliament, and Colonel CHUD-
worth. In England, 1714. At “a great court at St. James,”
Chudworth called Aldworth “a Jacobite ”; a quarrel ensued,
and it was agreed to repair to Marylebone fields in a coach, and
there adjust the matter. Aldworth was killed. * --
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 53
ALFIERI, VITToRIo, Count, a noble poet of Piedmont, and
Lord LIGONIER, a British peer. Some time previous to 1784.
Lady Ligonier, a beautiful but licentious woman, became Alfieri's
mistress. The duel was in consequence of the intrigue. The
Count was wounded in the arm. A divorce followed, and the
adulterer returned to Italy; but again saw the adulteress twenty
years afterwards, when she was the wife of a commoner, and
expressed herself as “perfectly happy.” " -
Alfieri, subsequently, is supposed to have enjoyed the favors
of Louisa Maria Caroline, Princess of Stolberg and Countess of
Albany, and wife of Charles Stuart, “the Pretender” to the
British throne, from whom she was separated. After the death
of the Pretender, the Count and Countess were married. Alfieri
died in 1803, − the Countess in 1824. Their ashes now min-
gle under the same monument, at Florence, between the tombs
of Machiavelli and Michael Angelo. The Count was an author
of much celebrity. His works, consisting of six comedies,
twenty-one tragedies, and various other writings, were published
in thirty-seven volumes, a few years after his decease. It was
owing to the Countess, he said, that he was able to achieve any-
thing worthy of preservation.
ALFonso, King of Portugal. See Ferdinand, King of Spain.
ALI, son-in-law of Mohammed, and his fourth successor.
Challenge to Moawiyah, in the year 657. In the wars of the
Saracens. -
“Ali called out to Moawiyah, “How long shall the people lose their
lives between us? Come hither. I challenge you to appeal to the
decision of God. And which of us two kills his man, let him have the
whole himself.’ Whereupon, Amrou said to Moawiyah, “Your cousin
has made you a fair proffer.’ Moawiyah said it was not fair, because that
Ali knew that no man had ever yet come out against him but he had
killed him. Amrou told him that his refusal would look dishonorable.
Moawiyah answered, ‘You have, I see, a mind to enjoy the government
yourself, after I am gone.’” - -
A battle followed. Moawiyah proposed to Ali to submit the
difference between them to two arbiters, who might determine it
according to the Koran and the tradition of the people. Ali de-
clined the proposition at first, but finally acceded to it.
ALLAIN, Mons. See Cournet.
ALLEN, (an eccentric, half-insane Irish lawyer, of some
note in his time), and a brother of the bar, whose name does not
5* --- -
54 CHALLENGES AND DU ELS.
appear. It is related in Curran and his Contemporaries, that
Allen dashed his bar-wig in the face of his brother lawyer, and
nearly blinded him with the powder, and that a meeting was the
consequence.
The attorney fired and missed; Allen, who had purposely
reserved his fire, brandishing his pistol furiously about, to the
imminent danger of all within its range, wildly demanded of his
awe-struck second, in whose mind’s eye the gallows largely
loomed, “Shall I rush on him with a shout, after the manner of
the ancients 2'"
ALLEN, Rev. BENNET. See Dulany, Lloyd.
ALLstons, and General REED. In Texas, in 1841 or early in
1842. A New Orleans paper of January of the latter year has
the following chapter of blood : —
“We learn the end of Willis Allston, who shot General Reed, of Flor-
ida. Mr. Allston, of Tallahassee, challenged General Reed. They fought
and the General shot him. Willis Allston, brother of the deceased, and
the General had a recontre subsequently, when the former shot the lat-
ter. Allston then went to Texas. About the 10th of last month, he
met Dr. John McNeil Stewart in the woods near Brazoria. An alter-
cation arose between them relative to a friend of Mr. Stewart. Allston
drew his knife to stab him, but Stewart, perceiving his intention, fired
three shots at him with one of Colt's pistols. Allston, though severely
wounded, fired a rifle and shot-gun at his opponent, which instantly
killed him. The citizens of Brazoria arrested Allston, took him out,
and shot him.” -
ALPHoNSE, Mons. See Isidore, Mons.
ALVANLEY, Lord, and MoRGAN O'Connel.L., Member of Par-
liament. In the year 1835. The parties fired several times,
but without injury to either. The quarrel was political, com-
mencing between his lordship and the celebrated Daniel O'Con-
nell, and terminating with his son Morgan, who assumed it for
reasons which probably appear in the account of the duel of the
great “Agitator,” in this work.
ALVARADo, Don DIEGo. Challenge to HERNANDo PIZARRo,
in Spain, in 1539. Hernando had condemned and executed
Diego de Almagro while in South America. The act was un-
necessary and unjust. Alvarado was Almagro's friend and
executor, and denounced Hernando as a base and ungrateful
tyrant, wherever he went. At last, he challenged the object of
his hate to single combat, pledging himself “to prove, by his
good sword, that Hernando, in his treatment of the Adelantado,
CHALLENGES AND DUI, LS, 55
had acted with cruelty and ingratitude, that he was a bad servant
to his king, and an unworthy knight.” Alvarado died five days
after sending this challenge. Dark surmises were entertained
as to the cause of his sudden decease, much to the injury of
Hernando; who, for his misdeeds in Peru, generally, was soon
after loaded with chains and imprisoned; nor was he released
until the lapse of twenty years, when, bowed by sorrow and in-
firmity, life was a burden. -
AMBoISE, BUssy D'. See Bouteville, Count Charles.
AMELUNG, FERDINAND LOUIs, of Louisiana. He entered the
military service, as captain of volunteers, in 1812; was retained
at the peace, when he had the same rank in the regular army.
He resigned in 1819, and was killed in a duel at Baton Rouge
the following year.
ANGE, ST. JEAN D’, Mons. See Aguesseau, Mons. Segur d’.
ANGIER, M. EMILE, and M. CHARLEs Moncel ET. In France,
in 1853. Neither harmed. Honor satisfied by a single shot.
Both literary men, and the duel caused by an article of Monce-
let, in which he criticized Philiberte, the last work of Angier.
ANGoULÉME, CHARLEs of VALOIs, Duke. He was a son
of Charles IX. ; was admitted a knight of Malta, and became
Grand Prior of France. While known as Count of Auvergne,
in the reign of Henry IV., and about the year 1604, he became
involved in plans which were treasonable, and, apprehending de-
tection, sent a challenge to the Count of Soissons, in order to be
banished from court. Soissons complained, and Henry, to sat-
isfy him, exiled the challenger. But the king soon recalled
Auvergne, and he was committed to the Bastile. In 1605,
Auvergne was condemned to death; but his sentence was com-
muted to imprisonment in the Bastile, where he remained more
than eleven years. He was created Duke of Angoulême in
1619, and died in 1650.
ANgus, Earl of See Spens of Kilspindy.
ANNANDALE, noble house of William, son of the second
Earl of Annandale, was slain in a duel in 1721. Antagonist
unknown.
ANToNY, MARC. Challenge to JULIUS CESAR, about the year
30 B. C. Antony's fortunes were on the wane : indeed, his
case had become desperate. In his extremity he resolved to
*
56 * CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
perform some extraordinary act of valor, and accordingly chal-
lenged Caesar to single combat. In Shakespeare, as Caesar reads
a letter, he speaks thus:
“He calls me boy: and chides, as he had power
To beat me out of Egypt; my messenger
He hath whipped with rods; dares me to personal combat.
Caesar to Antony. Let the old ruffian know -
I have many other ways to die; meantime,
Laugh at his challenge.”— Ant. & Cleo., Act 4, Sc. 1.
ANTRAGUET, , and QUELUs, a minion of Henry III. of
France. They fought with two seconds on each side, and with
swords. Antraguet, however, used both sword and dagger,
which Quelus said was unfair; whereupon Antraguet replied,
“Thou hast done wrong to forget thy dagger at home ; we are
here to fight, and not to settle punctilios of arms.”
ANTIN, D’, Mons. See Frettes, La.
ARGENLIEU, Mons. See Frettes, La.
ARNOLD, BENEDICT. See Lauderdale, Lord.
ARMSTRoNG, SIR THoMAs : a man of some notoriety in the
time of the Stuarts. In his youth, he was known especially for
his duels, and his drunken exploits. Scott introduces him in
Peveril of the Peak as Bully Tom Armstrong. He was ex-
ecuted without trial, in 1684, for his concern in Monmouth’s
conspiracy.
ARMSTRoNG, CHARLEs. Time and antagonist unknown. He
was of the family of Armstrong of Garry Castle. Engaged in
a duel, a relative of his own, of the name of Eyre, who acted
as second to his opponent, treacherously murdered him.
ARRAN, CHARLEs HAMILTON, Count of Challenge to General
Macartney, in the reign of Queen Anne. Macartney (second
of Lord Mohun) slew the Count's father in a duel, and fled to
Antwerp. The Count followed him, and invited a meeting.
The General declined. , Arran was the son of the Duke of
Hamilton “by the injured lady, Barbara Fitzroy.” (See Hamil-
ton and Mohun for a particular account of the cause of Arran's
cartel.) -
Ashford, WILLIAM. See Thornton, Abraham.
Assyr1A, King of See Cyrus, King of Persia.
AUBANYE, a member of the noble house of Angoulême,
CHALLENGES AND DUET.S. 57
France. Duel with swords; but Aubanye used a dagger in ad-
dition to the weapon agreed upon. His antagonist accused him
with having an undue advantage, whereupon he threw away his
dagger. This case, and that of Antraguet, show the dishonor-
able means resorted to by some duellists of former periods.
AUGENT, JoHN S. See Jones, |William H.
AUGERO, Mons. Challenge to General Lemery, in New York,
in 1852. The Spanish Consul of that city published an official
statement of the facts in the case. He said, -
“I visited General Lemery at the New York Hotel. As soon as I
entered, the General handed me a challenge, addressed to him by Mr.
Augero. I observed without hesitation that he could not accept it;
that his official acts were not amenable on individual appeals for satis-
faction, and that it would be a violation of his military rank and official
position, as well as of the laws of the State of New York, to enter into
a personal rencontre.”
The combat, according to the Consul’s account, was declined.
BAcot, Colonel. See Duleng, Mons.
BAGNESI, Marquis of. See Strozzi, Marquis.
BAINBRIDGE, WILLIAM, Captain in the Navy of the United
States. See Decatur, Stephen, – duel with Barron.
BAINBRIDGE, Joseph. See Cochran.
BAIRD, OLIVER T. See Wright, C. J.
BALCARRAs, Lord. See Shelburne, Earl of
BALL, See Kilkenny, Earl of
BANISTER, JoHN, of Virginia, Midshipman in the Navy of the
United States, in 1835. Antagonist unknown. Banister was
slain. /
BARBAGoN, J. M. See Carroll, E. T.
BARNAVE, ANT. PIERRE Jos. MARIE, a French barrister, and
deputy to the States-General. The hero of two duels. The
earliest, with Wiscount de Noailles, in which he fired first and
missed his adversary, who discharged his pistol in the air; when
the friends of both interfered. The second was in August,
1790, with Mons. de Cazalès, with pistols. Cazalès was wound-
ed. Barnave was condemned to death by the revolutionary
tribunal of Paris, in 1793. He was a man of fine powers of
elocution; and as good a judge as Mirabeau was astonished

58 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
“that one so young should speak so long, so rapidly, and so
eloquently.”
BARNE, BENJAMIN, of England. Antagonist unknown. The
duel in Ireland, in 1772. Barne killed. He was an officer of
dragoons, and a descendant of Sir George Barne, knight, who
was Lord Mayor of London in 1552.
, Captain. See Welch, Lieutenant.
BARNEs,
BARNETT, See Sheridan, Richard Brinsley.
BARNEY, HoN. JoHN, ex-Member of Congress, Maryland.
Challenge, in 1852, to Mons. Sartiges, Minister of France to the
United States. The message, was in the following terms : —
“To MONs. SARTIGES, Ministre de France.
- t “Baltimore, May 3, 1852.
“SIR,--I inclose, for your information, copy of a letter this day ad-
dressed to a former friend, Prince Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte, now
President of the Senate of France. If, in shadowing forth a faint out-
line of the infamy of your character, I have given you cause for offence,
my friend General is authorized by me to receive and respond
to any communications you may desire to make.
“The person of an ambassador is sacred, or I should have long since
corrected your impertinence by wholesome chastisement.
“The stringency of the laws of the District of Columbia in regard to
Fº has and will prevent my noticing you there in any way.
shall remain here until Thursday, 4 P. M., to learn and conform to
your wishes. I have the honor to be,
“JOHN BARNEY.”
The author is indebted to Mr. Barney for the above, and for a
copy of his communications to Prince Jerome, to Louis Napoleon,
Emperor of France, and to the President of the United States, in
which the reasons for his challenge to the French ambassador
are related in detail. They are substantially the same, and con-
tain “an array of facts, the truthfulness of which,” he remarks,
“he avers of his own knowledge.” These papers may be very
properly omitted here. I cite, however, a single passage from
the letter to Prince Jerome : — *.
“SIR,--I desire to recall to your memory the period when first I
had the honor to meet you in my father's house in Baltimore. As an
officer of the Revolution in America, and Chef de Division in the ser-
vice of the Republic of France, he claimed and had the honor to
receive you and your suite. - *
“The inclosed documents will evidence who I now am, and what I
have been. * -
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 59
“For more than thirty years the representative of my native city in
the councils of the State of Maryland, and in the Congress of the
United States; the personal friend of the late marshal, Count Ber-
trand, as is certified by the annexed letter, — I claim your attention in
gºing the degraded character of your Minister to these United
tateS.
“For twenty-seven years I have enjoyed the privilege of an acquaint-
ance with the Diplomatic Corps in Washington, and I bear willing tes-
timony to the amenity, courtesy, propriety, dignity, and polite civility
of all,—commanding the respect, esteem, and confidence of the pol-
ished society of Washington. Mons. Sartiges presents the solitary
exception,” &c., &c. -
BARoNNET, Mons. See Cournet.
BARRELL, GEORGE. Challenge to Mr. Zebedee Cook, Jun., of
Boston, in 1820. Mr. Cook published a card, in which he stated
that, in his opinion, merchants were not required to adjust their
disputes with pistols.
BARRINGTON, Colonel JonAH, and a Mr. GILBERT. In Ireland,
about the year 1759. The parties, after entertaining an irrecon-
cilable grudge for some time, finally met in single combat, on
horseback, on the green of Maryborough. It was arranged that
the ground should be one hundred yards of race, and eight of
distance; the weapons, two holster-pistols to each, and a sword;
the pistols to be charged with one ball and “swan-drops.” Six
months intervened between the arrangements and the duel. The
country people, for miles around, were present. Both parties
fired, and missed. At the second fire Barrington was wounded,
and, becoming enraged, a fierce hand to hand fight ensued; he
received three additional wounds, and Gilbert was cut on the
side and thigh. Both wore iron scull-caps under their hats,
which probably saved their brains. A reconciliation was effect-
ed, which was lasting; and when, subsequently, Barrington
fought a Mr. Fitzgerald, his antagonist in this affair was his
friend or second.
BARRINGTON, SIR JonAH. The chronicler of the most noted
Irish duels of his time. He was a duellist himself, and his ac-
counts of his affairs with Richard Daly and Leonard McNally
show the manner in which single combats sometimes originated,
and were conducted, by gentlemen of the Emerald Isle.
Ih the one case, Daly, who was a barrister, gave the chal-
lenge. Barrington had never, spoken a word to him in his life,
had scarcely spoken of him, and was wholly unconscious of
60 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
any cause of offence; but inasmuch as this was the first invi-
tation he had received, and as public sentiment in Ireland then
required that such a challenge should never be declined, he ac-
cepted without any inquiry as to the reason for being called out.
They met in the field of Donnybrook. A brother of Sir Edward
Crosby, Bart. was the friend of Barrington, and John Patterson,
nephew to the Chief Justice, accompanied Daly.
Crosby, without salutation or conversation, immediately cried
out, “Ground, gentlemen ground, ground ! damn measure-
ment l” The second of Daly advanced, and said that his prin-
cipal could not think of going further in the business; that he
was mistaken, and was sorry for having occasioned so much
trouble to Mr. Barrington and his friend; and that he hoped they
would excuse him, and shake hands with him. To this Barring-
ton had no sort of objection, but Crosby said, without hesitation,
“We cannot do that yet, sir; I show you we can't” (taking a
little manuscript book out of his breeches pocket). “There's
the rules, – look at that, sir; see No. 7: ‘No apology can
be received after the parties meet, without a fire.’ You see
there's the rule,” continued Crosby, “and a young man on his
first-blood cannot break rule, particularly with a gentleman so
used to the sport as Mr. Daly. Come, gentlemen, proceed, pro-
ceed l’’ Daly appeared much displeased, but took his ground
in silence. Barrington did the same. They fired; Barrington
took no aim, but wounded Daly. Barrington required to know
the cause of the challenge ; but it was now Daly's turn to cite a
rule, and his friend quoted No. 8: “If a party challenged ac-
cepts the challenge without asking the reason of it, the chal-
lenger is never bound to divulge it afterwards.” But this absurd
duel ended here.
In the affair with McNally, Barrington was also the challenged
party. McNally was a short man, “and nearly as broad as
long, his legs were of unequal length, and he had a face which
no washing could clean,” and was a good-natured, hospitable,
talented, dirty fellow. The parties met in the middle of the
review-ground, Phoenix Park. Barrington was attended by
Henry Harding, “a huge, wicked, fighting king's county attor-
ney,” and by Rice Gibbon, a surgeon. His ball struck McNally
in the side, who cried out, “I am hit.” Barrington's surgeon
instantly ripped up his clothes, and found that the bullet had
struck the buckle of his gallows (suspenders) and had not en-
tered his body. Harding exclaimed, “By J–s, Mac you are
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. - 61
the only rogue that I ever knew that was saved by the gallows.”
McNally had been in so bad odor among gentlemen of the bar
that no one would fight him. This duel placed him on fight-
ing ground. He had been universally insulted; but indignities
were suspended, and he often said that Barrington’s shot was his
salvation. In Curran and his Contemporaries, there is an amus-
ing description of his unfortunate position previously.
“His distress at one time was truly pitiable, at not being able to in-
duce anybody to fight him. Being, it seems, under some cloud, Harry
Grady, who wounded everybody with whom he fought, refused that
favor to McNally. Everybody followed this inhuman example. The
poor man could get nobody to shoot him, and was the picture of mis-
ery. In vain he fumed, and fretted, and affronted. All seemed deter-
mined on being “guiltless of his blood. Never was an Irish gentleman
so unfortunate. At length Sir Jonah Barrington, out of Christian char-
ity, accepted his cartel, and shot him into fashion. McNally was a man
again.”
BARRINGTON, WILLIAM, and Lieut. McKENZIE. The former
was a brother of Sir Jonah Barrington, and a youth of twenty
years; the latter an officer in the British army. Captain Gillespie,
though previously considered a friend of the Barringtons, volun-
teered as McKenzie’s second. It seems, by Sir Jonah's Sketches,
that the dispute between the principals was private, and ought
not to have caused a duel. McKenzie was not averse to an
arrangement; but Gillespie would entertain no overtures upon the
subject. The combatants met, fired, and missed. They fired a
second time. A reconciliation was then proposed, to which Gil-
lespie objected. Barrington expressed his readiness to adjust the
difficulty, after the second fire, and while thus protesting, was
shot dead by Gillespie. Gillespie was arrested, and in 1788.
tried for the offence. It was proved at the trial, that Barrington
declared enough had been done to satisfy the honor of himself,
and of his antagonist; that he actually held out his hand to
McKenzie, but that Gillespie exclaimed, “his friend should not
be satisfied, and the affair should proceed.” The prosecution
proved also, that Barrington uttered some harsh expressions rela-
tive' to Gillespie, who, losing his self-control, suddenly threw a
handkerchief to Barrington, asking if he “dared take a corner
of that ”; that the unfortunate youth snatched at the handker-
chief, and at the instant received a ball from Gillespie, which
passed through his body; that he expired in agony the same
evening, and that the murderer fled from the field.
*
6 /* r
62 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
It is remarked by Sir Jonah, that the circumstance of a sec-
ond's killing a principal because he desired a reconciliation, has
no other example in the annals of duelling.
Judge Bradstreet, who tried the case, held that the death of
Barrington was clearly murder ; but the jury returned a verdict
of “justifiable homicide.”
Gillespie became a general in the British army, and a monu-
ment to his memory has been erected in Westminster Abbey.
It is said that he was never happy after Barrington's fall; that,
intrepid to excess, he often tempted fate. He was slain under
the walls of Bangalore, India, and possibly while courting death
to end his sorrows.
BARRoN, JAMEs, Captain in the Navy of the United States.
See Decatur, Stephen.
BARRY, , Captain, British Navy. See Montgomery.
BARTHELMy, Mons. See Courmet.
See Graham, W. G.
BARWELL, , member of the Council of Bengal. See
Clavering, General.
BART.on,
BAssett, WILLIs H., Surgeon in the Navy of the United States,
and Joshua SANDs, Lieutenant in the same service. In South
America, in 1830. Bassett was killed. The survivor and
the seconds were sent to the United States by their commanding
officer.
BATE, HENRY. See Dudley, Sir Henry, Baronet.
BATH, WILLIAM PULTENEy, Earl of, and Lord HERVEY. In
England, in 1731. This duel gave offence to the king, who re-
moved Mr. Pulteney from the office of Privy Councillor, and from
the commission of the peace. Pulteney was one of the ablest op-
ponents of Sir Robert Walpole; and, on the downfall of that min-
ister, was elevated to the peerage by the title here given to him.
BATRE, CLAUDE DE, a French knight. See Mavimilian, Em-
peror of Germany. - -
BATTIER, , an officer of the tenth regiment of hussars,
British army. Challenge, in 1824, to the Marquis of London-
derry. It seems that the officers of that regiment claimed the
right to determine who should be admitted into, and who should
be excluded from, the corps, and that Battier, under the auspices
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 63
of the Duke of York, obtained a commission, in opposition to
the rule. The result was, that no one would associate with him.
Thus “driven into Coventry,” he retired on half-pay. The
Marquis was colonel of the regiment, hence the challénge. -
BAYARD, Chevalier. See Sotomayor, Alonzo de.
BAYARD, GoDEFROI. See Eu, Count d”.
BAvARIA : a Court of Honor established in 1819, to prevent
duelling. Success of the measure unknown.
BEAUMANo1R, a knight of Breton. See Bemborough, an Eng-
lish knight.
BEAUMARCHAIs, Mons. See Clavijo, Don Joseph Flaaccardo.
BEAUMonT, Mons. See Manuel, Mons.
BEDFoED, Duke of, and the Duke of BUCKINGHAM. In Eng-
land, 1822. Both parties fired ; the former in the air. The
duel grew out of an expression of his grace of Bedford, at a
county meeting.
BELLAMonT, Lord. See Townshend, Lord.
BELLAsses, SIR HENRy, and THoMAs Port ER. In 1677. I
quote from the Edinburgh Review : —
“They dined together . . . in Sir Robert Carr's. It happened that
these two, the greatest friends in the world, were talking together, and
Sir H. Bellasses talked a little louder than ordinarily to Tom Porter,
giving him some advice. Some of the people standing by said, ‘What!
are they quarrelling, that they talk so high 2° Sir H. Bellasses, hearing
it, said, ‘No, I would have you know I never quarrel, but I strike;
take that as a rule of mine.’ ‘How,” said Tom Porter, “strike | I
would I could see the man in England that durst give me a blow l’
With that Sir H. Bellasses did give him a box on the ear; and so they
were going out to fight, but were hindered. . . . . But they met; Porter
watching the coach of Sir Henry, stopping it, and bidding him to come
out of it. . e
“So out they went, and they both drew, and they fell to fight, some
of their acquaintances by. They wounded one another; and Sir H.
Bellasses mortally. He, finding himself severely wounded, called to
Tom Porter, and kissed him, and bade him shift for himself. ‘For,’ says
he, “Tom, thou hast hurt me, but I will make shift to stand on my legs
till thou mayest withdraw, and the world take no notice of thee; for I
would not have thee troubled for what thou hast done.’ And then Tom
Porter showed him how he was wounded too. . . . . Both of them were
. . . . extraordinary friends. It is pretty to hear how the world talk of
them, as a couple of fools that killed one another out of love.”

64 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
I may add, from another source, that James II., while Duke
of York, and after the decease of his first wife, desired to
marry the widow of Sir Henry Bellasses; that they were in fact
engaged ; that the lady, believing that the Duke’s interests would
suffer, released him ; but retained in writing his promise of
marriage, to preserve her reputation.
BEMBROUGH, , an English knight, and BEAUMANOIR, a
knight of Breton, of the party of Charles of Blois.
A duel of thirty knights on a side, about the year, probably,
1349. After the knights of the two nations came into the field,
and before the combat began, Beaumanoir proclaimed, that “it
‘would be seen that day who had the fairest mistresses.” The
Bretons prevailed, after a bloody combat. Among the English
knights were two distinguished generals, — Sir Robert Knowles
and Sir Hugh Calverly. In the advance of civilization, the duel-
lists of our time wonder at a contest so ridiculous as this: may it
not be well to remember that, in the still further progress of the
human race, modern duelling will excite equal surprise.
BENNET, Doctor. See Williams, Doctor.
BENNETT, WILLIAM. See Stewart, Alphonso.
BERARD, Mons. See Brives, Mons. M.
See Fitzwilliam, Earl of
BERTHOLON, Moris. See Aguesseau, Mons. Segur d’.
BERESFORD,
BEST, a captain in the guard of Elizabeth, Queen of England,
and OLIVER ST. JoHN, of the noble house of Bolingbroke. In
England. Best was killed. St. John, a student or barrister at
law, relinquished his studies, and fled the kingdom : adopting a .
military life, he obtained distinction in the wars of the queen and
her successor, and was finally advanced to the peerage as Wis-
count Grandison. -
BEST, Captain. See Camelford, Lord Thomas.
BEUVRoN, Marquis of See Bouteville, Count Charles.
BIDDLE, THoMAs, and SPENCER PETTIs. In Missouri, in 1831.
Both killed. Biddle was the challenged party, and, being near-
sighted, stipulated a distance of five feet, with pistols. Their
weapons, in position, actually overlapped each other. Both con-
ducted with remarkable coolness. They exchanged forgiveness
on the ground. Pettis died the day after, and Biddle the third day
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 65
after the duel: the former was a member of Congress elect from
Missouri, the latter a major in the army of the United States, and
a brother of Nicholas Biddle, the celebrated banker. The quarrel
commenced in the newspapers of St. Louis, during an election
Cöll] VaSS.
^- J
BINGHAM, -. See Moore, James.
Biv AR, DoN RodRIGo (RUy) DIAz, Count, surnamed The Cid.
He was the flower of Spanish chivalry, in the eleventh century.
Two of his single combats are memorable. In one, the quarrel
was between his father and the father of his lady-love. The
two fathers fought, and Bivar's was vanquished: when, smarting
under insult and disgrace, he required his son to espouse his
cause. Bivar obeyed the call, and the parent of his loved one
fell by his hand.
In the other case, the Count was the champion of Ferdinand
I., who, challenged by Ramiro, King of Aragon, obtained pos-
session of Calahorra by the success of Bivar, who conquered
Gonzales, the knight substitute of Ramiro.
Bivar, in the reign of Alfonso, the son of Ferdinand, fought a
duel by champions, to redress his own wrongs. The two broth-
ers, Counts of Carrion, had sued for and received his daugh-
ters in marriage, merely, it would seem, to obtain Bivar's great
wealth, which, according to their plan, was given them with
their brides, whom they instantly treated with the greatest bar-
barity and abandoned. Bivar at once demanded the restoration
of his property, and a combat with his inhuman sons-in-law.
They would gladly have avoided the conflict, but Alfonso insist-
ed, and they reluctantly complied. The knight-champions of
Bivar overcame them, but spared their lives.
Bivar is the hero of the great tragedy of Corneille, and of
many of the old Spanish romances and ballads.
Lord Woodhouselee says, that Bivar distinguished himself
above all other Christian knights, and that Alfonso, by his ser-
vices, became the most powerful of those petty sovereigns that
divided the kingdom of Spain, of whom, at this period, there
were about twenty (Christians and Mahometans), besides many
independent nobles. ^
BIXIo, Mons., ex-Minister of France. See Thiers, Mons.,
Minister of France. - -
BLAIR, JAMEs. See Peachy, A. C.
• 6 *
66 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
!
BLANC, Mons. CHARLEs, and Mons. LACOMBE. In France,
1849. The offence was on the part of Lacombe, who wrote a
paragraph against the brother of Blanc. Lacombe was wounded,
when the seconds declared that “ honor was satisfied.”
BLooMFIELD, SAMUEL C., of New Jersey. An officer in the
army of the United States. Was killed, in 1814. Antagonist
unknown.
BLount, CHARLEs, and the Earl of Essex. In England,
1585. The Earl was the challenged party. It appears that,
when Queen Elizabeth first saw Blount at Whitehall, she was
pleased with his graceful person, and paid him marked attention.
Essex was angry. At a subsequent time, Blount, who was of
noble blood, and a younger brother of Lord Mountjoye, ran so
well at tilt, that Elizabeth sent him a token of her favor. Blount
soon after appeared at court, with the Queen's present displayed
upon his person, which he took no pains to conceal. Essex saw
the decoration, and asked what it was, and wherefore worn ?. On
hearing the facts from Fulke Greville, the Earl remarked con-
temptuously, “Now I perceive that every fool must have a
favor.” g
Thereupon, Blount gave a challenge. He met Essex near
Marybone park, and the haughty Earl was wounded in the thigh,
and disarmed. When Elizabeth was told of the duel and its
result, she swore by “God’s death, that it was fit that some one
or other should take the Earl down, and teach him manners,
otherwise there would be no ruling him.” She said also, “that
her beauty had been the object of their quarrel.” But Essex, at
the time, weary of her fondness, called her “the old woman.”
BLount, Hon. THoMAs, member of Congress from North
Carolina. Challenge, in 1797, to HoN. GEORGE THATCHER, mem-
ber of Congress from Massachusetts, and subsequently a judge
of the Supreme Court of that State. -
The offence was given in debate. Mr. Blount introduced a
series of resolutions on the subject of “Defensive Measures,”
one of which contemplated the putting of eighty thousand of the
militia of the country “in a state of requisition.” Mr. Thatcher,
in the course of his remarks to the House, commented upon the
phrase “requisition,” as a French term of which he was not
fond, and said that, while he had no objection to holding such a
number of men “in readiness,” he entertained the hope that the
sentiment would be expressed in “American language.” Mr.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 67
Blount thereupon defended the offensive word by an appeal to
the proceedings of the Congress of the Confederation, and to the
calls of that body upon the States for troops, during the war of
the Revolution ; and concluded with saying, that he “thought
the objection a trifling one, and such as the gentleman ought to
be ashamed of making.” Mr. Thatcher rejoined, that he did
not often say anything of which he was ashamed ; and closed
with repeating the old adage, “that a guilty conscience needs
no accuser.” Mr. Blount rose in great warmth, and declared,
that he “should take from no man, with impunity, such language
as that,” when, interrupted by a loud call to order, he took his
seat. Here the dispute in the House appears to have ended.
But Mr. Blount, in due time, sent a hostile message. Mr.
Thatcher's answer afforded much amusement at the expense of
his chivalrous adversary, and was, in substance, that, being a
husband and a father, his family had an interest in his life, and
that he could not think of accepting the invitation without the
consent of his wife, then at home in Massachusetts, whom he
would immediately consult.
Fisher Ames spoke of the affair in a letter to Dwight Foster,
in his happiest vein : — *
“I leave it to you wise men to save the nation. Some of you must
watch and pray, and others must fight, if need be. I should not have
thought the lot would have fallen upon Thatcher to defend his princi-
ples by the sword. And, what is not the least remarkable, he got into
the scrape by expressing his aversion to anything French. He is a
worthy fellow. May he long escape wounds and sickness, and enjoy
as much glory as he thirsts for, without bleeding to get it. Does not J.
Smith remark the advantage of a wife? She is an excuse on a chal-
lenge. God preserve you from gunpowder,” &c.
BLUE, WILLIAM K., of Virginia. Antagonist unknown. He
entered the army of the United States, as cornet of cavalry, in
1793; was subsequently a lieutenant of dragoons, and a captain
of infantry. After quitting the service, and after the year 1800,
he fell in a duel at Fort Washington, Ohio. *
BLUNDELL, -—, a Lieutenant in the British service. In the
Isle of Wight, supposed in the year 1813. Blundell was slain.
His antagonist, his second, and two others, all officers in the
army, were tried and convicted of murder. They were, how-
ever, pardoned, but dismissed the service. .
BoDKIN, AMBY. See Bourke, John.
68 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
BolTon, Duke of, and STEwART. In England, 1760.
Mr. Stewart was a candidate for a seat in Parliament. Duel
with swords near Marylebone. Stewart slightly wounded. “The
Duke, in making a pass, overreached himself, fell down, and
hurt his knee. The other bid him get up, but he could not;
then he bid him ask his life, but he would not.” The combat
ended.
BoLToN, WILLIAM B. See White, Francis B.
BonAPARTE, CHARLEs. See Canino, Prince of.
BonAPARTE, PIERRE. In France, 1849. Involved in the per-
sonal quarrels of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in
November, it is believed that he was a party to two or three
duels immediately following them. (See Aguesseau and Ber-
tholon, for the quarrels here referred to.) But no particulars
have been ascertained, except that M. Xavier Durrieu was, prob-
ably, his antagonist in one of the combats supposed to have
taken place. (See also Nieikerke, Count.) $
BosweLL, SIR ALEXANDER, and JAMES STEwART, or STUART.
In Scotland, in 1822. Sir Alexander was the son of Dr. John-
son's biographer; and Stewart was connected with some of the
noblest and most ancient families in Scotland.
In 1821, a newspaper was started in Edinburgh, called the
Beacon, which contained an attack on Stewart; but that affair
was settled. Other attacks in the same paper followed, in
which his “name was directly coupled with the word dastard, –
with that of bully, - of sulky poltroon, — coward, – despised,”
&c. The Beacon was soon extinct; but another paper was
started called the Sentinel, in the first number of which the
attack on Stewart was renewed. He at length discovered, or
supposed he did, that Boswell was the writer of one or more of
these attacks. The Earl of Rosslyn, as Stewart's friend, had
an interview with Boswell, who could have adjusted the difficulty
with the Earl on liberal and honorable terms. But he declined
the overture made to him. “I cannot submit to be catechized,”
said he ; “I will make neither denial nor apology.” A meeting,
according to the code of honor, was thus rendered unavoidable.
Stewart expected to fall, but escaped. Boswell was killed.
Stewart fled, leaving a message, that, if a prosecution was de-
signed against him, he would return. He surrendered himself
for trial, in accordance with his pledge. It was proved that the

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 69
duel was a fair one, and he was acquitted. His friend, the
Earl of Rosslyn, as well as Mr. Douglas, the second of Sir
Alexander, were witnesses at the trial. The verdict of acquittal
was received with loud cheers.
He became involved in speculations soon after, and came to
America. After his return, he published an account of his
travels in the United States, and was the editor of the Courier,
a paper which supported the Liberals. During the administration
of Lord Melbourne, he was appointed “Factory Inspector,” and
discharged his duties in a manner satisfactory to all parties. He
died in 1849, at the age of seventy-four. *
Bothwell, JAMES HEPBURN, Earl, and Duke of Orkney.
General challenges, in 1567, to all gentlemen of good fame,
who accused him of participation in the murder of Lord Darnley
the husband of Mary of Scotland. .
The first challenge was contained in a published writing im
mediately after his trial and acquittal. No one appears to have
accepted it. The second cartel was at the head of Mary’s army,
and on the eve of a battle with the troops of the nobles who had
confederated against her. The queen's soldiers were irresolute,
and discovered no inclination to engage ; she wept, threatened,
and reproached them. Bothwell, at this juncture, sent to his
adversaries a defiance, offering to decide the quarrel, and to
prove his own innocence, in single combat, Kirkaldy of Grange,
Murray of Tullibarden, and Lord Lindsay, contended for the
honor of entering the lists against him. Robertson, from whom
this account is derived, remarks, that this challenge proved to be
a mere bravado; that Bothwell's sense of guilt, or Mary’s com-
mand (whose husband he then was), prevented the duel. But
Chalmers states, that Bothwell declined to meet two Murrays,
because they were inferior to him in rank; that he gave a defi-
ance to Morton by name, that Morton is said to have accepted,
and selected to fight on foot, with two-handed swords; that Lord
Lindsay, by Morton's consent, assumed the quarrel, and that the
Queen is said to have commanded both to desist.
BoucICAULT, Marechal de, of France, and Governor of Genoa.
Challenge, in 1403, to the Doge of Venice, or to Carlo Zeno, one
of the most distinguished Venetians of the time. Boucicault and
Zeno were in command of opposing fleets, – Greece and Venice
being at war. After a battle, Zeno, in a despatch to the
Signory, claimed the victory, and added, that, if his officers had
*
70 CHAL LENGES AND DUELS,
performed their duty, not one vessel of the Genoese fleet would
have escaped him. The haughty Boucicault could ill brook the
statements of his enemy, and replied to them in a long and
intermperate cartel, addressed not only to Zeno, but to the Doge
of Venice. In this communication, he gave them the lie direct;
and, to establish his own contrary assertions, – confiding, as he
declared, in divine justice, in the blessed Mother of God, and in
St. George, – he challenged either of them to meet him in the
lists, offering advantage of numbers, – fighting with five against
six, ten against twelve, fifteen against eighteen, twenty against
twenty-four. Or, to settle the disputed question of naval superi-
ority, he would meet galley against galley, on the condition that
his own vessel should be manned exclusively by Genoese and
French, and that of his antagonist by Venetians. Neither chal-
lenge was accepted. Boucicault probably had been, or subse-
quently was, engaged in a duel at Padua, in the presence of
many noble Venetians. (See Galeazzo.)
Bouligny, HENRY, and CUMMINGs. In 1851, at or near
New Orleans. Bouligny killed.
Bourbon, Duke of. See Charles X. of France.
Bourke, John, of Glinsk, and AMBy BoDKIN. In Ireland,
date not ascertained. The parties fought, principals and sec-
onds, at ten paces, with pistols, at right angles, and all fired on a
signal from an umpire. A child of Bourke (subsequently Sir
John Bourke) was held upon a man's shoulder to see “papa
fight.” The two principals were slightly wounded at the first
fire, and at the second the seconds and Bodkin were severely
hurt; but no lives were sacrificed. Several of Bourke's ser-
vants were present.
BouTEvil LE, FRANCIS DE, Count, of the ancient and illustri-
ous family of Montmorenci, and one of the noted duellists of
France, in the seventeenth century. Four persons of considera-
tion fell by his sword in three years; namely, M. Pontgibaud,
in 1624; Count de Thorigny, and the Marquis Desportes, in
1626; and M. Lafrette, in 1627. After the fall of the last, he
and the Count des Chappelles, his second, fled to Brussels, where
he was pursued by the Marquis de Beuvron, a relative of the
Count de Thorigny, who determined to revenge his kinsman's
death. An apparent reconciliation was, however, effected;
though it is related that, at the moment they embraced in token

CHAL LENGES AND DUELS. 71
of forgiveness, Beuvron whispered to Bouteville, “I shall never
be satisfied till I have met you sword in hand.” Louis XIII.
was solicited to pardon Bouteville, but refused ; whereupon
Bouteville exclaimed, that he “would fight in Paris, ay, and in
the Palais Royal, too !” It so turned out. On his return to
France, a duel of three against three was arranged between him
and Beuvron, and the Palais Royal was selected as the place
of combat. Beuvron was attended by Buquet, by his equerry,
and by Bussy d'Amboise; Bouteville by Des Chappelles, by a
cousin who was a constant companion in his duels, and by an-
other gentleman. They fought with swords and daggers. Bussy
fell by the hand of Des Chappelles, when the five survivors fled ;
Beuvron and Buquet to England, Bouteville and his cousin to-
wards Lorraine. The king ordered a vigorous pursuit of the
offenders; and Bouteville and his kinsman were overtaken and
committed to the Bastile. Louis was importuned by the nobles
and others, to pardon them. The Countess de Bouteville im-
plored him, on her knees, to spare the life of her husband.
Again, accompanied by the Princess of Condé, and three duch-
esses, the wretched wife renewed her supplications. The mon-
arch was inexorable. Bouteville, and his relative were executed.
Francis Henry de Montmorenci, Duke of Luxembourg, a posthu-
mous son of Bouteville, was early distinguished in war; and at
the age of twenty was created a major-general by Anne of Aus-
tria. It is said that, after Turenne had fallen, and Condé retired,
Luxembourg had no equal in France.
BouvALLEN, Mons. See Dujarier, Mons.
Bouverie, Edward, Member of Parliament, and Lord
TANKERVILLE. In England, 1794. Bouverie was mortally
wounded.
Bouvet, Mons. F. and Mons. Roger DU For D. In France, in
1850. Both were members of the Chamber of Deputies. They
fought with pistols, without serious result to either. The meet-
ing was in consequence of an angry personal discussion in the
Chamber. It is stated that Bouvet is “one of the most distin-
guished and zealous members of the Peace Society”
BowTE, JAMEs J., of Maryland. Lieutenant of dragoons,
army of the United States. Killed in 1809, at New Orleans.
Antagonist unknown. - * *
Bowl.INGLY, W. H. See Roman, Charles.

72 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
BoyD, -, a captain, and CAMPBELL, a major in the
British army. Both were officers of high standing. Campbell
was a Scotchman of an ancient family. The duel in 1807, in
Ireland. They fought in the night-time, without seconds, at
seven paces, and in a private room. The dispute was trivial in
the extreme. General Kerr had corrected Campbell’s manner of
giving an order. Campbell, in conversation about it, said that he
was right, and the General wrong. Boyd, in reply, expressed
the opinion, that “neither was correct, according to Dundas,
which is the king's order.” The whole provocation of Camp-
bell consisted — as judicially appears — in the manner of Boyd's
saying, “’Yes, I do,” in answer to his question, “Do you say I
am wrong 2 ”
Campbell's agony of mind, after the affair, was insupportable;
and he resolved to surrender himself. In a letter to his friend,
E. Thompson, Esq., he declared: “I will die . . . . . and
suffer a violent and ignominious death for the benefit of my
countrymen, who, by my unhappy ea.it, shall learn to abhor the
too prevalent and too fashionable crime of duelling.”
He was tried for murder, convicted, and executed in 1808.
It is manifest from the proceedings, that, had he fought a com-
mon duel, he would have been acquitted. His offence was, not
that he killed Boyd, but that he killed him contrary to established
rules. This sufficiently appears, I think, from the reasoning of
the judge who presided at the trial. In his charge to the jury,
he remarked : — - --
“You must recall to your minds the words of the deceased Captain
Boyd, namely: ‘You have hurried me; I wanted to wait and have
friends. Campbell, you are a bad man.’ These words are very impor-
tant; and if you deem them sufficiently proved, they certainly do away
all extenuation. If you think them proved, the prisoner is most clearly
guilty of murder; the deceased will then have been hurried into the
field; the contract of opposing life to life could not have been perfect.”
It was shown in the evidence, that, after the dispute, the par-
ties separated for several hours; that they quartered in a garrison
where they had mutual friends who could have acted as seconds;
and that Boyd maintained in his dying moments that Campbell
was not fair. Efforts were made to procure the pardon of the
unhappy officer; and a touching story of the exertions of his
wife to move the royal clemency has been preserved.
BRADDoCK, EDwARD, a general in the British army, and Colonel
GUMLEY, presumed of the same service. Horace Walpole

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 73
(speaking of Braddock's defeat and death, in the wilds of Amer-
ica, in 1755), in a letter to Sir Horace Mann, referred to his
previous mention of the unfortunate General, and remarked, that
he would then “complete the poor man's history.” Braddock,
he said, “once had a duel with Colonel Gumley, Lady Bath's
brother, [Elizabeth Gumley, wife of William Pulteney, Earl of
Bath, who had been his great friend ; as they were going to
engage, Gumley, who had good humor and wit, (Braddock had
the latter,) said, ‘Braddock, you are a poor dog! here, take my
purse; if you kill me, you will be forced to run away, and then
you will not have a shilling to support you.” Braddock refused
the purse, insisted on the duel, was disarmed, and would not
even ask his life.” -
BRADSHAw, Ensign See Huston, Lieut.
BRAzER, M. C. See Park, J. W.
BREAUTE, CHARLEs DE, a French gentleman of Caux, and a
captain of a troop of horse. About the year 1600. He was
a noted duellist of the time, and, of consequence, had been com-
pelled to leave France. In the present case he arranged a
combat of twenty French against twenty Flemish gentlemen.
He slew his antagonist, an officer under the governor of Bois-le-
duc, but was taken prisoner, and put to death by order of that
functionary.
BRECKINRIDGE, JoHN C. See Cutting, Francis B.
BRIC, , a member of the “Catholic Association,” and Mr.
HAYEs, solicitor. In Dublin, 1827. Bric was slain.
BRIVEs, Mons. M., and Mons. BERARD. In France, in 1849,
with pistols. The seconds of the first were Mons. Baume and
Lefont; of the latter, Mons. de Heckeren and Chapot. Brives
fired first and missed; the pistol of Berard missed fire. The
seconds interfered and put an end to the combat. The duel was
the result of a stormy debate in the Chamber of Deputies, or
Legislative Assembly of France. [See Aguesseau and Bertho-
lon, for a particular account of this discussion.] -
BRodeRICK, Hon. D. C., and J. CALET SMITH. In California,
in 1852. The newspaper statement of the affair is, that “six
shots were fired without any serious damage, when the parties
separated” in amity.
BRooks, WALTER, and Judge REED. In Mississippi, in 1851.
7
74 CHAL LENGES AND DUELS.
At the first fire, Reed's ball grazed Brooks's spine, but did not
enter his body. Here the combat terminated.
BRowN, Sir MATHEw. See Townshend, Sir John.
BRUCE, JAMEs, the celebrated traveller. Two affairs. The
first, at Brussels, in 1757. On the second day after Bruce's
arrival at that city, he was in company with a stranger, who was
wantonly insulted by a third person. Bruce remonstrated with
the aggressor, who, for his interference, challenged him. The
invitation was accepted. The parties met; our traveller wound-
ed his adversary twice, and fled from Brussels to Holland.
The second, in 1773, at Rome. Bruce, before he was consul
at Algiers, had plighted his faith to a Scotch lady, and during
his travels had remained true to his engagement. On his return
from the East, he found that the lady had been united to the
Marquis d’Accoramboni. He suddenly appeared at Rome, and
desired the Marquis to apologize in writing for having married a
lady who had been engaged to him. The Italian nobleman
politely assured him that he would not have interfered had he
known of the engagement. This declaration Bruce insisted
should be expressed in a note. The Marquis declined. There-
upon, Bruce addressed him in a hostile letter. After complain-
ing of the course of the Marquis, he says: —
“I am at least your equal, Marquis, and God alone can do me justice
for the injury which you have done me. Full of innocence, and with a
clear conscience, I commit my revenge to him; and I now draw my
sword against you with that confidence with which the reflection of
having done my duty, and the sense of the injustice and violence which
I have suffered from you, without any reason, inspire me. At half past
nine (French reckoning) I come in my carriage to your gate; if my
carriage does not please you, let your own be ready. Let us go together
to determine which of the two is the most easy, — to offer an affront to
an absent man, or to maintain it in his presence.”
This message was sufficiently savage. The Marquis replied:
“When the marriage with Miss M., at present my wife, was
contracted, it was never mentioned to me that there was a pre-
vious promise made to you, otherwise that connection should not
have taken place.” He added, that, upon his honor, he had not
spoken of Bruce in any manner, his person not having been
known to him. Thus ended the affair.
BRUCE, EDwARD, Lord of Kinloss, and the Earl of DoRSET. In
Netherlands, in 1613. Bruce was the second nobleman of the
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 75
name ; and Dorset, at the time of the duel, had not succeeded to
the title, but was known as Sir Edward (or Sir George) Sack-
ville. .*
I have found frequent references to this tragic affair, but no
work within my reach contains an account of the difficulty
which led to it. Chambers, who has woven an interesting story
out of it, relates (with what departure from historical accuracy
I have no means of determining) that Bruce was enamored of
the Lady Clementina, Sackville's sister; that, while Bruce was
at Lord Dorset's house on a visit to his love, Sackville came
home in a high state of intoxication and excitement, and, having
grossly insulted Bruce, finally struck him in the face, in the
presence of Lady Clementina; that Bruce, for her sake, pre-
served a calm demeanor, and, though the words and the blow
wounded his spirit to its depths, and turned his love for Sackville
to gall and bitterness, yet had the affray been kept private, as
he hoped it would, he would not, probably, have called him to
an account; that, most unfortunately, the occurrence obtained
publicity; and that Bruce was compelled, at length, to resolve
upon calling Sackville out, because of the loss of the esteem of
persons of his own rank, and of gentlemen generally. Cham-
bers, in his story, relates further, that, subsequently, Sackville
gave Bruce another blow, and thus rendered a duel unavoidable ;
and that the meeting was appointed on the continent, in conse-
quence of the king’s knowledge of the first quarrel, and the de-
termination which he had expressed to visit any transgression
of the laws by either, with his severest displeasure. It is stated
also, that Bruce took leave of his mother, and of the Lady Cle-
mentina, feeling that he should never see them more ; that, in
consequence of his fall, life to both was ever a mere blank; that
the latter wore mourning and lived single for the rest of her
days, while the former caused the heart of her son to be em-
balmed, and placed in a silver case, and kept it always before
her upon her table; and that, after the decease of the Lady
Bruce, the silver case was deposited in the family vault, where
it remained undisturbed till the year 1808, when it was removed
for a short time, during some repairs upon the tomb.
To return to history. Burke cites from Clarendon, but does
not narrate the cause of the duel.
“Sackville,” says Clarendon, “entered into a fatal quarrel, upon a
subject very unwarrantable, with a young nobleman of Scotland, the
Lord Bruce, upon which they both transported themselves into Flan-
*.
*
i

76 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
ders, and, attended by two chirurgeons, placed at a distance, and under
an obligation not to stir but at the fall of one of them, they fought under
the walls of Antwerp, where the Lord Bruce fell dead upon the place ;
and Sir Edward Sackville (for so he was called), being likewise hurt,
retired into the next monastery which was at hand.”
I find it said, that Bruce possessed a character without re-
proach, and promised, by his talents and excellent qualities, to
occupy the very first rank in affairs; but that Sackville, on the
other hand, was extravagantly fond of frolics, and, according to
contemporary writers, “ kept the streets of London in an almost
perpetual broil.” Whatever the truth as regards either noble-
man, the combat was disgraceful to both. They fought in a
meadow, ankle-deep in water, and in their shirts. Such an en-
counter ill became gentlemen, even early in the seventeenth
century; and, with the duel between the Duke of Buckingham
and Lord Shrewsbury, some fifty years later, should be cited to
silence the outcries of horror of our British brethren, whenever
the bravos of America, on the borders of civilization, use the
bowie-knife, and striké down one another in the bridle-path.
The Earl of Dorset died in 1652. We have his own account
of his fight with Bruce, in a letter to a friend, dated at Louvain,
Sept. 8, 1613. It is here inserted. As will be seen, he vouches
for its entire accuracy in the concluding sentence: “So may I
prosper, as I have dealt sincerely with you in this relation.”
Whatever the reader's disgust of details of blood, let Sackville’s
relation be carefully studied and treasured, in order to possess
a weapon of defence against aspersions often cast upon us
abroad. * - t º
“We met at Tergosa, in Zealand, it being the place allotted for ren-
dezvous; he being accompanied with one Mr. Crawford, a Scotch gen-
tleman, for his second, a surgeon, and a man. There having rendered
himself, I addressed my second, Sir John Heidon, to let him understand
that now all following should be done by consent, as concerning the
terms whereon we should fight, as also the place. To our seconds we
gave power for their appointments, who agreed we should go to Ant-
werp, from thence to Bergen-op-Zoom, where in the midway but a
village divides the States’ territories from the Archduke's. And there
was the destined stage, to the end that, having ended, he that could
might presently exempt himself from the justice of the country, by re-
tiring into the dominion not offended. It was further concluded, that,
in case any should fall or slip, that then the combat should cease, and
he whose ill fortune had subjected him was to acknowledge his life to
have been in the other's hands. But in case one party's sword should
break, because that could only chance by hazard, it was agreed that the&
s
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 77
other should take no advantage, but either then be made friends, or else
upon even terms go to it again. Thus these conclusions being each of
them related to his party, was by us both approved, and assented to.
Accordingly we embarked for Antwerp. And by reason, as I conceive,
he could not handsomely, without danger of discovery, had not paired
the sword I sent him to Paris; bringing one of the same length, but
twice as broad; my second excepted against it, and advised me to
match my own, and send him the choice, which I obeyed; it being, you
know, the privilege of the challenged to select his weapon. At the de-
livery of the swords, which was performed by Sir John Heidon, it
pleased the Lord Bruce to choose my own, and then, past expectation,
he told him that a little of my blood would not serve his turn; and,
therefore, he was now resolved to have me alone, because he knew
(for I will use his own words) ‘that so worthy a gentleman, and my
friend, could not endure to stand by and see him do that which he must
to satisfy himself and his honor.’ Therefore Sir John Heidon replied,
that such intentions were bloody and butcherly, far unfitting so noble a
personage, who should desire to bleed for reputation, not for life; withal
adding, he thought himself injured, being come thus far, now to be pro-
hibited from executing those honorable offices he came for. The Lord,
for answer, only reiterated his former resolutions; whereupon, Sir John,
leaving him the sword he had elected, delivered me the other, with his
determinations. The which, not for matter but manner, so moved me,
as though to my remembrance I had not for a long while eaten more
liberally than at dinner, and therefore unfit for such an action (seeing
the surgeons hold a wound upon a full stomach more dangerous than
otherwise), I requested my second to certify him I would presently
decide the difference, and therefore he should presently meet me on
horseback, only waited on by our surgeons, they i. unarmed. To-
gether we rode, but one before the other some twelve score paces, for.
about some two English miles; and then passion, having so weak an
enemy to assail as my discretion, easily became the victor, and, using
his power, made me obedient to his commands. I being verily mad
with anger that the Lord Bruce should thirst after my life with a kind
of assuredness, seeing I had come so far and needlessly to give him leave
to regain his lost reputation, Ibade him alight, which with willingness
he quickly granted, and there in a meadow, ankle-deep in water at the
least, bidding farewell to our doublets, in our shirts began to charge
each other; having afore commanded our surgeons to withdraw them-
selves a pretty distance from us, conjuring them besides, as they
respected our favors, or their own safeties, not to stir, but suffer us to
execute our pleasure; we being fully resolved (God forgive us!) to de-
spatch eath other by what means we could. I made a thrust at my ene-
my, but was short, and, in drawing back my arm, I received a great
wound thereon, which I interpreted as a reward for my short shooting;
but in my revenge I pressed into him, though I then missed him also,
and received a wound in my right pap, which passed level through my
body, and almost to my back. And there we wrestled for the two great-
S. 7 * .
|

78 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
est and dearest prizes we could ever expect trial for, honor and life.
In which struggling, my hand having but an ordinary glove upon it,
lost one of her servants, though the meanest. But at last breathless,
yet keeping our hold, there passed on both sides propositions of quitting
each other's swords. But when amity was dead, confidence could not
live, and who should quit first was the question, which on neither part
either would perform; and restriving again afresh, with a kick and a
wrench I freed my long captive weapon, which incontinently levying
at his throat, being master still of his, I demanded if he would ask his
life, or yield his sword, both which, though in that imminent danger, he
bravely denied to do. Myself being wounded, and feeling loss of blood,
having three conduits running on me, which began to make me faint,
and he courageously persisting not to accede to either of my proposi-
tions, through remembrance of his former bloody desire, and feeling of
my present estate, I struck at his heart, but, with his avoiding, missed
my aim, yet passed through the body, and, drawing out my sword, re-
passed it again through another place, when he cried, “Oh! I am slain l’
seconding his speech with all the force he had to cast me. But being
too weak, after I had defended his assault, I easily became master of
him, laying him on his back. When being upon him, I redemanded if
he would request his life; but it seemed he prized it not at so dear a
rate to be beholden for it, bravely replying, “He scorned it.” Which
answer of his was so noble and worthy, as I protest I could not find in
my heart to offer him any more violence, only keeping him down until
at length his surgeon, afar off, cried, “He would immediately die if his
wounds were not stopped.’ Whereupon I asked if he desired his sur-
geon should come, which he accepted of; and so, being drawn away, I
never offered to take his sword, accounting it inhuman to rob a dead
man, for so I held him to be. This thus ended, I retired to my surgeon,
in whose arms, after I had remained awhile, for want of blood, I lost
my sight, and withal, as I then thought, my life also. But strong water
and his diligence quickly recovered me; when I escaped a great dan-
ger; for my Lord's surgeon, when nobody dreamt of it, came full at me
with his Lord's sword; and had not mine with my sword interposed
himself, I had been slain by those base hands; although my Lord Bruce,
weltering in his blood, and past all expectation of life, conformable to
all his former carriage, which was undoubtedly noble, cried out, ‘Ras-
cal, hold thy hand!” So may I prosper, as I have dealt sincerely with
you in this relation.”
BRUNswick, HENRY, Duke of Challenge, in 1528, to ANDREA
GRITT1, Doge of Venice. When the Duke despatched his cartel
of defiance to single combat, he had approached the Wenetian
frontier, and had made an unsuccessful diversion in the Veronese.
The affair between the Emperors Francis and Charles (which
some writers assign as the origin of modern duelling) occurred
only the previous year; and his grace of Brunswick seems to
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 79
have possessed the low ambition of imitating the French mon-
arch under circumstances that brave men of the time must have
ridiculed ; for his challenge was to a man who was more than
eighty years of age.
BRUNTFIELDs,
Carmichael, James.
, sons of the Laird of Craig-house. See
BRYANT, SAMUEL H., and In 1814. Bryant was
a native of North Carolina, and a lieutenant in the army of the
United States. He was killed. * , - -
BUCK, , Lieutenant, army of United States. See Moore,
Thomas.
BUCKINGHAM, Owen, member of Parliament, and WILLIAM
ALDworth. In England, in 1719 or 1720. They quarrelled
“after having drank too freely,” and fought in the dark. Buck-
ingham was killed.
BUCKINGHAM, Duke of. See Bedford, Duke of.
BUCKINGHAM, Duke of See Shrewsbury, Earl of:
BUCKINGHAM, Lord. See Townshend, George.
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, Lord. See Curran, John Philpot.
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, SIR HENRY, Baronet, and OLIVER LE NEVE.
In England in 1699. Buckinghamshire mortally wounded.
He was with King William in the battle of Boyne, 1690, as
one of his Majesty’s aids. At his decease, he was a member
of Parliament.
BUGEAUD, THoMAs Robert, a Marshal of France. See Du-
long, Mons. -
BULL, OLE BoENEMAN, one of the greatest musicians of
modern times. About the year, probably, 1838. His antago-
nist was a fellow-artist, and was mortally wounded.
BUNBURy, REv. SIR WILLIAM, and “ToM HARVEY.” In
England, 1753. Walpole, in a letter to George Montague,
• WTOte : —
“Tom Harvey, who always obliges the town with a quarrel in a dead
season, has published a delightful letter to Sir William Bunbury, full of
madness and wit. He had given the doctor a precedent for a clergy-
man's fighting a duel, and I furnished him with another story of the
same kind, that diverted him extremely,” &c. . . . . . . . -

80 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
BUQUET, Mons. See Bouteville, Count Charles.
BURGUNDY, the Duke of Challenge, in 1425, to the Duke of
Gloucester, who held Hainault, of which the challenger wished
to obtain possession. The defiance was accepted, and a day ap-
pointed, but I find no account of a duel.
BURDETT, SIR FRANCIS, and JAMES PAUL. In England, 1807;
the former wounded. The two gentlemen met in consequence
of “a misunderstanding about the former being chairman of a
dinner to be given to the latter.” Mr. Paul was much before
the public, at this period, as the accuser of the Marquis of Wel-
lesley, and as a candidate for the representation of Westminster
in Parliament. In 1808 he committed suicide.
BURLINGTON, Lord, and Lord EUsTon. In England, 1741.
Burlington challenged Euston, and the challenge was accepted,
but the meeting was prevented.
BURR, AARON, Vice-President of the United States. See
Hamilton, Alexander. -
BURRowes, PETER. See Butler, Hon. Somerset.
BUTLER, Hon. Som ERSET, and PETER BURRowes, a barrister at
law. In Ireland, near Kilkenny.
Barrington gives an amusing story of the meeting between
these gentlemen, of which I note the substance. Butler was an
accomplished duellist; Burrowes was not. The distance ten
paces; the weapons pistols. Butler's ball struck Burrowes's
body, and he dropped down. Butler fled. The surgeon was
called, Burrowes's clothes were ripped up, and his wound pro-
nounced mortal. The dying man groaned, tried to recollect
some prayer, if possible, or a scrap of his catechism. Brother
barristers present sighed heavily ; he was about departing to
another, and, as they endeavored to persuade him, to a better
world. The spectators closed in to see him die Lo! the sur-
geon, after,a second examination, produced the bullet fired by
Butler, which, having rattled among the gingerbread, nuts, &c.,
with which Burrowes's waistcoat-pocket was filled, struck a cop-
per coin, and became flattened. Of course he was not hurt:
suspending his prayers, and rising from the ground, he departed,
happy in his escape from death.
BYNUM, JESSE A., member of Congress from North Carolina.
. See Cilley, Jonathan.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 81
ByNUM, , and PERRY. In North or South Carolina,
1832. The first was editor of the Greenville Sentinel, the other
of the Greenville Mountaineer. Bynum was mortally wounded,
and died in great agony.
ByRNE, JoHN. See Mountgarret, Lord.
ByRNE, EDMUND. See Miller, William, Jun.
ByRoN, Lord WILLIAM. See Chaworth.
CADwall'ADER, John. See Conway, General Thomas.
CESAR, JULIUS. See Antony, Marc.
See Rutherford.
CALIFoRNIA: Constitutional provision : —
“Any citizen of this State who shall, after the adoption of this Con-
stitution, fight a duel with deadly weapons, or send or accept a chal-
lenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, either within this State or
out of it, or who shall act as second, or knowingly aid or assist in any
manner those thus offending, shall not be allowed to hold any office of
profit, or to enjoy the right of suffrage, under this Constitution.”
CALDwell, Doctor. See O’Sullivan.
CAHILL,
CALLIER, General. See Soule, Pierre.
CALVERT, PETER, an officer in the army of William III. of
England, and of the family of Calvert of Albury Hall. Slain
in a duel at Chester.
CAMELFoRD, Lord THoMAs, and Captain BEST. In England,
near “ Holland House,” in 1804. Lord Camelford, who was an
eccentric man, and who confessed himself the aggressor, was
slain. He was found weltering in his blood, deserted by his
seconds. He was the second of that name, and but twenty-nine
years of age. I suppose that he enjoyed the title in 1798, when
a Lord Camelford deliberately shot dead Lieutenant Paterson, in
the naval yard at Antigua, upon a point of disputed rank; but
was “honorably acquitted" by a court-martial, on the ground
that Paterson's conduct was mutinous.
Captain Best was reputed a fatal marksman. A short time pre-
vious to the duel, he had killed a man by the accidental discharge
of a pistol. Best was miserable ever afterward. He died at
forty-eight, a perfect wreck. “In his closing hours, he declared
that the recollection of the duel and its results had embittered
every moment of his life, that the whole scene was fresh in his

82 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
memory, as if it had happened yesterday, and that there were
times when Lord Camelford seemed to stand before him, and
gaze on him with an earnestness and tenacity that rendered life
a burden.”
CAMP, J. J., Major. See Woolfolk, General Sowell.
CAMPBELL, Major. See Boyd, Captain.
CAMPBELL, Colonel. See Coffin, John.
CAMPBELL, In 1833. According to Niles's Register,
he was Attorney of the United States for Florida, and was
killed in a duel.
CAMPBELL, SIR Colin, and the Lord of LoRN. Campbell was
the ancestor of the Duke of Argyle, and was knighted by Alex-
ander III., in 1280. He was slain by his powerful neighbor, the
Lord of Lorn. An obelisk was erected over his grave.
CANINo, CHARLEs BonAPARTE, Prince of, and a son of the
Count Rossi. In France, in 1851. The circumstances are thus
stated : —
“Charles Bonaparte, Prince of Canino, and formerly President of
the Roman Assembly, has been frequently assailed indirectly with
odious imputations, as having instigated the murder of Rossi. Viscount
Arlincourt, who has written a reactionary book about Italy, let drop in
the pages of his Italie Rouge some atrocious insinuations to this effect,
for which he was recently fined. Stirred up by such hints, and worked
upon by the blind fury of the foes of the revolution, the second son of
Count Rossi lay in wait for an occasion to avenge his father's death.
Charles Bonaparte was dining with a friend at a café on the Quai
d'Orsay, when the waiter announced to him that a gentleman outside
wished to speak with him. Prince Canino required his name, and,
being refused, begged the mysterious stranger to wait till he had finished
dinner. Rossi sat down at one of the little tables outside the café, and
when his adversary came out marched up to him, saying, ‘You are the
Prince of Canino. Having received an answer in the affirmative, he
aimed a blow at the Prince's face. Mediators interposed to prevent the
scuffle from going further, and the principals were led off in different
directions. They met again in the Park at Versailles, and exchanged
a couple of pistol-shots each, at thirty and fifteen paces, without effect.
The seconds then declared the requisitions of honor satisfied.”
CANNING, GEORGE, and Lord CASTLEREAGH. In England,
1809. The parties met on Putney Heath; Mr. Canning, attend-
ed by Charles Ellis (afterward Lord Seaford); and his lordship
by Lord Yarmouth (subsequently the Marquis of Hertford).
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 83
— — — — — — — — ----- - - – - – - — — — . .------------------------------º-º-º-º-º-v-x-x- *** ---º-º-º-º-º-º---------...----
They fought in sight of the windows of the house in which Pitt
died. They fired by signal, and missed. The seconds attempted
to effect an accommodation : they failed; but declared that, after
a second shot, they would retire from the field. At the next fire,
Castlereagh's ball entered Mr. Canning's thigh on the outer side
of the bone. Napier says the wound was severe ; another
writer, that it was slight. As it is believed that Mr. Canning
personally surrendered the seals of the Foreign Office twenty
days after (Oct. 11), at the royal levee, his injury was not,
probably, very serious.
According to some accounts, the two statesmen assumed their
places for a third shot, when the seconds, seeing the blood
streaming from Mr. Canning's wound, interfered, and put an end
to the combat. Mr. Canning, in the opinion of his biographer,
might have declined Lord Castlereagh’s challenge, on very ob-
vious grounds, but accepted it, because he thought that his lord-
ship's letter precluded explanation. Bell remarks, also, that
Wilberforce blamed Castlereagh, and that Sir Samuel Romilly
blamed both.
The affair did not terminate on Putney Heath. Mr. Canning
was compelled to publish a statement of the whole transaction,
in answer to certain strictures of Lord Camden ; while Lord
Castlereagh's secretary issued a “ detail” of the “ original cause
of the animosity,” which was answered by Mr. Canning.
This duel, politically, was of no small consequence, since it
occasioned the dissolution of the ministry. The difficulty be-
tween the immediate parties is probably stated with accuracy
by Wade.
“Mr. Canning,” he says, “had some months previously addressed a
letter to the Duke of Portland, the head of the administration, inform-
ing his grace that he should resign the Foreign Secretaryship, if
Lord Castlereagh continued to hold the Secretaryship of War, for
which department Mr. Canning thought Lord Castlereagh unfit.
“The Duke of Portland, either from not coinciding in opinion with
Mr. Canning, or wishing, himself, from the infirmities of age, to retire
from the ministry, delayed to act on the suggestion of Mr. Canning,
though he promised that it should be carried into effect. Meantime, no
communication was made to Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Canning con-
tinued to act with him in the cabinet, even while the important expedi-
tion to Walcheren was being prepared, without openly avowing any
objection to the official competence of his colleague.
“Under these circumstances, his lordship considered that he had been
treated with duplicity, and demanded satisfaction.” •.

84 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
In 1818, Mr. Canning had a personal disagreement with Sir
Francis Burdett, in consequence of a letter of the baronet to the
chairman of the “Reform Dinner.” A duel was anticipated,
and possibly arranged ; ; but friends effected a satisfactory ad-
Justment.
CANNoN, , and PIERson, At or near Havana, in
1819. Both midshipmen in the navy of the United States, and
at the time of the meeting attached to the ship John Adams.
Cannon killed on the spot.
CARAscos A, General. See Pepe, General.
CARDIGAN, JAMES THOMAs, Earl of, and Captain HARVEY G.
P. TUCKETT. In 1841, on Wimbledon Common, England. The
parties met with pistols, at twelve paces. Tuckett was wounded
at the second shot. -
Lord Cardigan was tried at the bar of the House of Lords and
acquitted, on the ground that the proof failed to establish the
identity of Tuckett, as set out in the indictment. Lord Denman, .
as Lord High Steward, sat as judge. The bishops were, upon
their request, excused from answering. The Duke of Cleveland
answered, “Not legally guilty, upon my honor”; all the other
peers said, “Not guilty, upon my honor,” in the usual form.
CARDoGAN, Captain. See Paget, Lord.
CAREy, MATHEw, and Colonel Oswald. In 1785, in Penn-
sylvania. The parties were editors of newspapers in Philadel-
phia, of opposite politics. The political discussions of the time
were conducted with much asperity, and Oswald indulged in
remarks in his columns which Carey resented, and which in-
duced him to send a challenge. In the combat that followed,
Carey was severely wounded. Singular to remark, he com-
* menced authorship by the publication of an essay on duelling.
CARLISLE, Earl of See Lafayette, Marquis of
CARMICHAEL, JAMEs, and the BRUNTFIELDs, of Scotland.
There is an interesting story founded on the murder of Stephen
Bruntfield, Laird of Craig-house, and a zealous partisan of
Mary of Scotland, by James Carmichael, a friend successively
of Murray and Morton. The tale is founded, I suppose, upon
facts of history. Chambers, who relates it, quotes from “Bird's
Diary,” and gives extracts “from notes of a conversation on
local antiquities, with Sir Walter Scott,” in 1824.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 85
It appears, by the tradition mentioned by Sir Walter, that
Stephen Bruntfield left three sons, who were trained by their
mother to challenge and fight Carmichael, as each of them
should arrive at the years of manhood, to avenge their father's
murder; that two fought Carmichael, and were slain, and that
the youngest son obtained the royal leave to meet the mortal foe
of his family in public lists, on the island of Cramond, where a
vast assembly of people from every part of Scotland met to wit-
ness the combat. In this — the third duel — Carmichael was
killed on the spot. -
The Diary, as quoted, omits an account of one combat. The
first, as stated, was with the son Stephen, in December, 1596,
on St. Leonard's Craigs ; and the third, – with the son Adam, -
“who purchased a license of his Majesty,” was in March, 1597,
“in Barnbougle Links, before about five thousand gentlemen.”
“And,” concludes the quaint chronicler, “the said Adam, al-
though but ane young man, and of mean stature, slew the said
James Carmichael, he being as able a lyke man as was living.”
CARNE, RICHARD, of England. In Holland. He was slain.
He was of the family of Carne of Nash, and of the lineage of
Clemen ap Bledri, King of Cornwall.
CARREL, ARMAND, a literary character of merit, of France.
Two duels. In 1832, having reflected upon the honor of the
Duchesse de Berri, he was involved in an affair with one of her
chivalric defenders, and was severely wounded by the sword of
his adversary.
In 1836, he fought a second time with Emile de Girardin, and
was killed. His remains received a public funeral, and several
orations and eulogies were pronounced over his grave.
CARRION, brothers and Counts of See Bivar, Don Rod-
rigo.
CARRoll, E. T., and J. M. BARBAGON. At or near New
Orleans, in 1852, with rifles. After the second fire, the affair
was amicably settled. Carroll is editor of the Crescent.
CARson, See Vance,
CARTER, W. H., and H. De Councey. In California, in 1852.
De Courcey, editor of the Calaveras Chronicle ; he was shot
through the body. - +
CARY, Sir RoberT, of Torr Abbey, England. . Early in the
8 : #
86 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
reign of Henry V. a knight of Aragon, who had won great
fame by his feats of arms on the Continent, went over to Eng-
land, and gave a general challenge to men of rank and quality.
Sir Robert consented to meet him, and after a long and cruel
encounter, in Smithfield, London, vanquished him. The family
estate of Sir Robert had been confiscated, by reason of the de-
votion of his father to Richard II., but was restored by Henry as
a reward. -
CASTINE, Cornet. See Moore, Dudley.
CASTLEREAGH, Lord Viscount. See Canning, George.
CAVENDISH, Lord FREDERIC. See Shelburne, Earl of
CAvoie, PHILIP D’OGER, Marquis of A French nobleman
who flourished in the second half of the seventeenth century. He
became known as the “brave Cavoie,” in consequence of his gal-
lant bearing in the duels in which he was engaged. He seems
to have escaped punishment for his own affairs of honor, but
was imprisoned for acting as second in the quarrel of another.
His release from the Bastile was owing to a maid of honor of
the queen of Louis XIV., of the name of Coetlogon, who had
become madly in love with him, and to whom he was married.
The Marquis died in 1716, at an old age. It is said, that—“a
fashionable gladiator" — he was one of the handsomest men in
France, and dressed with singular elegance.
CAY, or KAY, of England. There is a tradition, that the an-,
cestor of the family of Cay of Charlton Hall, county of Nor-
thumberland, lost the ancient patrimony in consequence of a
duel. The substance of the story is, that this ancestor, and a
gentleman with whom he had a quarrel, agreed to meet in single
combat, within the pound-fold of Alnwick; that they locked the
door or gate on entering, and threw the key over the wall; that
Cay slew his adversary, and, climbing the wall, fled; that his
estates were forfeited, and that he lived ever after in poverty.
CAzETEs, Mons. See Barnave, Ant. Pierre Jos. Marie.
CEARNACH, CoNNAL, and CEAT. Very possibly the story is
fabulous. The former is represented as the most valiant champion
of Europe, and as second in command of the army of Conner,
King of Ulster (Ireland), and Ceat as commander of the army
of Connaught, in the “memorable seven years' war” prior to
the Christian era. They met in mortal duel.
CHALLENGES AND DUET.S. 87
“Ceat, . . . . having overthrown three of the bravest champions of
Ulster, in single combat, sent a herald to Connal Cearnach, to challenge
him to a personal conflict, which was instantly accepted. For two days,
we are told, the contest between these chivalrous heroes lasted, of which
both the armies of Connaught and Ulster were spectators. Although
Ceat was slain first, he sold his life at the dear price of his rival's, for
Connal lost so much blood in the fierce and desperate struggle, that he
fell down exhausted, in a swoon, upon the body of Ceat.”
CHAISTAIGNERIE, Mons. See Jarnac, Mons.
CHALAIs, Mons. See Frettes, La.
CHAPPELEs, Count of. See Bouteville, Count Charles.
CHARLEs, King of France. See Richard II of England.
CHARLEs V., Emperor of Germany. See Francis I., King
of France.
CHARLEs X., King of France, and the Duke of Bourbon. In
the year 1778, when the king was known as the Count d'Artois.
The offence was on the part of the Count, who, at a ball in the
opera hall, Paris, pulled off the mask worn by the Duchess of
Bourbon. The Duke, who was a Conde, and father of the Duke
d'Enghien, for his challenge to the Count, was banished to
Chantilly.
CHAvoix, Mons. See Dupont, Mons.
CHAworTH, , and WILLIAM, Lord ByRoN. In London,
in 1765. The parties had a dispute at a public dinner, relative
to the quantity of game on their respective estates. But the
difference did not seem serious to the gentlemen present, and no
apprehensions were entertained that it would proceed further.
The company dispersed at an early hour in the evening, when
Lord Byron invited Mr. Chaworth into a vacant room, in the inn
or hotel where they had dined, took a candle from a servant,
told Mr. Chaworth to defend himself, and drew his own sword.
Mr. Chaworth received a stab in his body fourteen inches deep,
and was mortally wounded. He was carried to his residence in
London, and immediately executed his will. He expired the
morning after the duel.
The circumstances of the combat, the meeting without sec-
onds and by candle-light, occasioned much excitement against
Lord Byron, and suspicions were raised, that he drew his sword
and made a pass with it before his antagonist was allowed time
88 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
to draw his weapon entirely from the scabbard. But his lord-
ship did not attempt to escape.
The case was considered so equivocal, that he was arrested,
and tried before his peers in Westminster Hall. He behaved with
decorum, but appeared shocked and humbled. The trial lasted
two days. The Dukes of York and Gloucester were present.
Four of the noblemen, namely, Lords Beaulieu, Falmouth, De-
spenser, and Orford, acquitted him entirely ; but one hundred
and twenty others answered that he was guilty of manslaughter.
He plead his peerage, and escaped, by his privilege, “burning
in the hand.” According to one writer, he was “discharged upon
simply paying his fine "; another says, that he was set at liberty
“on payment of fees”; while in the State Trials it is said that
he was released, “having undergone one day's confinement.”
Though he was legally acquitted of murder, he suffered the
punishment of public opinion ; and was consigned to a life of
seclusion and obscurity. He was the fifth Lord Byron, and
great-uncle of the poet. He died in 1798.
The strongest and most lasting attachment of Lord Byron,
author of “Childe Harold,” was to Mary Chaworth, the daugh-
ter of Lord William's antagonist. This lady, who was two
years older than his lordship, regarded his love as the passion of
a schoolboy, and married another. The event caused the poet
the keenest bitterness, and he never alluded to it without suffer-
ing. His disappointment had an influence upon his whole life.
CHEETHAM, JAMEs. Challenge to William Coleman, in 1804.
These gentlemen were among the leading editors of the day.
Both lived in New York. The first, a Democrat, conducted the
American Citizen, the organ of his party; the latter was editor
of the Evening Post, a Federal paper of great influence.
The cartel of Cheetham was in consequence of an altercation
in the two newspapers. The state to which the quarrel came at
last, transpired so far as to be understood or suspected by distin-
guished gentlemen of the Federal and Democratic parties, who
interposed to prevent a meeting. But Coleman, for not fighting
in this case, was involved in another affair, in which his antago-
nist was slain. See Thompson, Captain, and William Coleman.
CHETwyND, WILLIAM. See Walpole, Horace.
CHICKLEY, Captain. See Stanly, John.
CHOLAT, Mons. See Aguesseau, Mons. Segur d’.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 89
CHRICHTon, JAMEs, surnamed the “Admirable,” for his won-
derful feats, and deeds of generosity. Towards the close of the
sixteenth century. He challenged a gladiator of Mantua, who,
by his great skill with the sword, had vanquished the most cele-
brated masters of that weapon in Europe, and who had just
slain three antagonists. The victor in the combat, by Chrich-
ton's terms, was to receive from the other a purse of fifteen
hundred pistoles. The gladiator was killed. The money won
by his fall was presented by the “Admirable" to the widows of
the three adversaries above mentioned.
CHRISTIE,
Magazine.
, Barrister at Law. See Scott, Editor London
CHUDworth, Colonel. See Aldworth, tº
CID, The. See Bivar, Don Rodrigo (Ruy) Diaz, Count.
CILLEY, JonATHAN, and WILLIAM J. GRAVES. In Maryland,
near Washington, in 1838. The parties were members of the
House of Representatives; the first from Maine, the last from
Kentucky. Among the gentlemen present at the meeting were
six other members of Congress; namely, Messrs. Crittenden and
Menefee, of Kentucky; Wise, of Virginia; Duncan, of Ohio;
Bynum, of North Carolina; and Jones, of Wisconsin.
This was a combat under the duello, upon a mere point of
honor. There was no difficulty between Méssrs. Graves and
Cilley, at any time. Even upon the ground, after an exchange
of shots, the latter declared, that he entertained for Mr. Graves
“the highest respect, and most kind feelings.” -
Mr. Cilley fell mortally wounded, with these sentiments upon
his lips. It has been suggested that, as there was no personal
animosity between these gentlemen, a single fire should have
satisfied Mr. Graves, and that, by twice renewing the challenge,
the duel was pushed to an unusual, perhaps to an unjustifiable, ex-
tremity. Possibly, the intimation is not destitute of force. But
since no condemnation of the course pursued has been pronounced
by persons versed in the duello, and since the affair was actually
conducted throughout by persons of this description, we are re-
quired to believe that Mr. Cilley was slain in accordance with
the code. sº -
In this view of the case, how very deplorable the law which
demanded, or seemed to demand, two members of the national
councils, of unquestioned character, to meet in a combat, which,
8
90 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
under the circumstances, was almost sure to terminate only with
the fall of one or both of them.
The challenge was given because Mr. Cilley declined to
accept a note from Colonel Webb, borne by Mr. Graves, “on
grounds which would exonerate Mr. Graves from all responsi-
bility growing out of the affair.” This Mr. Cilley could not do,
without an admission that, in his remarks in the House relative
to Colonel Webb, he had slandered that gentleman; and thus, as
said Mr. Williams of Maine, in announcing his death in the Sen-
ate, “he accepted the call, because the act was indispensable, to
avoid disgrace to himself, to his family, and to his constituents.”
The supposition, that the letter of Mr. Graves of February
20, and the reply thereto, by Mr. Cilley, of the following day,
raised a question of veracity, and thus introduced a new element
into the case, is without the least foundation, as will be seen from
the correspondence, and the official paper appended to this
notice. . . -
The decease of Mr. Cilley was announced in both houses of
Congress, on the 26th of February, and his remains were in-
terred from the Hall of Representatives, on the next day. On the
1st of March, a committee of seven members of the House was
appointed, “to investigate the causes which led to his death,
and the circumstances connected therewith.” The report of this
committee was not made until the 25th of April. It contains a
minute account of everything which occurred, and is well wor-
thy of a careful study, not only as embracing an authentic
statement of facts, but as showing the odious, the inhuman cus-
tom of duelling, as it exists in the highest walks of American
society.
This fatal combat gave rise to a most intense excitement, and
accusations of an appalling nature were freely circulated against
some of the actors in it; but not one of the charges, it is confi-
dently believed, rests upon competent evidence. There was a
stern, an unrelenting adherence, even, to stern and unrelenting
rules, on the part of the principals, and their friends, – nothing
more. In my judgment, the sole motive of all was “to avoid dis-
grace.” We are to blame, then, the public sentiment which
demanded this course of conduct.
I knew Mr. Cilley well. He was a man of chivalrous feelings
and of proud bearing. He seemed never to forget that he was
of the lineage of an honorable and ancient family, that his
grandfather was a general officer in the Revolution, and that his
CHALLENGES AND DUET, S. 91
brother led the charge of the gallant Miller, at the battle of
Bridgewater, in the war of 1812.
“The committee appointed to investigate the causes which led to the
death of the Hon. Jonathan Cilley, late a member of the House of
Representatives, and the circumstances connected there with, and to
inquire whether there has been, in the case alluded to, a breach of the
privileges of the House, and to whom were referred sundry memorials
on the subject, now ask leave to submit their report.
“In discharging the trust committed to them by the House of Repre-
sentatives, the committee have endeavored implicitly to obey its order,
neither stopping short, on the one hand, of the full measure of the duty
imposed upon them, nor transcending its just limits on the other. They
were of the opinion that the investigation was instituted solely for the
maintenance of the privileges of the House. It was not within the
province of the House of Representatives to investigate the causes
which led to the death of one of its members, or the circumstances
which attended it, with a view to the punishment of any offender for a
high crime or misdemeanor. That belongs, in every case, exclusively
to the courts of law. Senators and representatives are not privileged
from arrest in cases of ‘treason, felony, and breach of the peace’; and
it is a constitutional provision, that ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the ac-
cused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been com-
mitted, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law;
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; to be
confronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process
for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of coun-
sel for the defence.” .'
“The inquiry, therefore, is directed to one object only, - the main-
tenance of the privileges of the House; and the question is, What, in
that view, were the causes which led to the death of Mr. Cilley, and
the circumstances connected there with, and did they involve a breach
of those privileges 2
“In pursuing this investigation, the committee have examined all
whose testimony, there was reason to believe, might be material; and
Messrs. Graves, Wise, and Jones, members of the House, were permit-
ted to attend, and to examine and cross-examine the witnesses; and
the same leave was extended to Mr. Menefee, of the House, and to Mr.
Pierce, of the Senate, at their request. The entire mass of the testi-
móny is now submitted as a part of this report. One witness, Daniel
Jackson, of the city of New York, who was summoned to attend, and
called upon to testify, has neglected to obey the requisition, though he
appeared before the committee, and interrogatories were put to him;
but from the position in which he stood, and the disclosures of another
witness, it was not thought worth the time or attention of the House,
or of the committee, to notice him further.
“The late Jonathan Cilley, a member of the House, from the State
92 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
of Maine, fell by the hand of William J. Graves, a member of the
House from the State of Kentucky, in a duel fought with rifles, near
the boundary line between the District of Columbia and the State of
Maryland, on Saturday, the 24th of February last.
“The causes which led to his death are intimately connected with the
proceedings of this House. On the 12th of February Mr. Wise, of
Virginia, presented to the House a publication in the New York Courier
and Enquirer, charging a member of Congress with corruption upon
the authority of an anonymous writer under the signature of the ‘Spy
in Washington’; and thereupon moved a resolution for the appoint-
ment of a select committee, with power to send for persons and papers,
to inquire into the charge. Mr. Wise said: ‘The character of the
authority upon which the charge is made is vouched for as respectable
and authentic by the editor of the Courier and Enquirer, in whose
paper it appears, and the House is called upon to defend its honor and
dignity against the charge.”
“Mr. Cilley addressed the House in opposition to the resolution. In
the course of the debate he said, “He knew nothing of this editor; but
if it was the same editor who once made grave charges against an insti-
tution of this country, and afterward was said to have received facilities
to the amount of $ 52,000 from the same institution, and gave it his
hearty support, he did not think his charges were entitled to much
credit in an American Congress.’ These words, spoken by Mr. Cilley
in debate, were strictly in order, were pertinent to the subject under
discussion, and ‘did not exceed the bounds and limits of his place and
duty”; and though they implicated a doubt inconsistent with unblem-
ished honor and character in the person alluded to, yet Mr. Cilley was
justified in the use of them, by a report of a committee of the House
of Representatives, appointed on the 14th of March, 1832, to inspect
the books and examine into the proceedings of the Bank of the United
States. An extract from the report, made by the *. of the com-
mittee, and published by order of the House of Representatives, is
hereby annexed, in which it is stated, that “for sixteen months’ the New
York Courier and Enquirer “was warmly opposed’ to the Bank of the
|United States; that on the 26th of March, 1831, and within less than nine
months thereafter, the bank made three loans, amounting ‘to the sum

of $52,975, which consisted of notes drawn and indorsed by the editors .
only’; and that “on or about the 8th of April, 1831, it (the paper)
changed its course in favor of the bank.’ -
“It was in reference to the facts contained in this report, and pub-
lished to the world by order of the House of Representatives, that Mr.
Cilley spoke the words which have been already recited; and for thus
alluding to facts put forth in the published documents of that body, of
which he was a member, he was called in question by the editor of the
New York Courier and Enquirer. James Watson Webb, on the 12th
of February, addressed a note to him, reciting those words, apprising
him that the writer of it was the editor of that paper, and concluding
with a demand of explanation, couched in very explicit terms.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 93
º “Gadsby's Hotel, Washington, February 21, 1838.
“SIR, - In the Washington Globe of the 12th instant, you are re-
Fº to have said, in the course of the debate which took place in the
ouse of Representatives on that day, growing out of a publication
made in the New York Courier and Enquirer: “He (you) knew noth-
ing of this editor; but if it was the same editor who had once made
grave charges against an institution of this country, and afterwards was
said to have received facilities to the amount of some $52,000 from the
same institution, and gave it his hearty support, he did not think his
charges were entitled to much credit in an American Congress.’
“I deem it my duty to apprise you, sir, that I am the editor of the
paper in which the letter from the ‘Spy in Washington,’ charging a
member of Congress with corruption, was first published; and the ob-
ject of this communication is, to inquire of you whether I am the editor
to whom you alluded, and, if so, to ask the explanation which the char-
acter of your remarks renders necessary.
“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“TO THE HON. JonATHAN CILLEY. J. WATSON WEBB.
“This demand of explanation, under the circumstances which existed,
was not susceptible of misinterpretation, and, the sequel proves, was
not misunderstood. Mr. Graves was the bearer of this note, having
read it, and being fully apprised of its contents, and tendered it to Mr.
Cilley, in the hall of the House of Representatives, while the House was
in session. Mr. Cilley declined to receive it, and thereupon a brief cor-
respondence ensued, which terminated in the challenge and death of
Mr. Cilley by the bearer of this note. The first note of Mr. Graves was
delivered by himself to Mr. Cilley, on the same day on which he bore
the note of Webb, that is, on Wednesday, the 21st of February, 1838,
and should have borne that date.
“House of Representatives, February 20, 1838.
“In the interview which I had with you this morning, when you
declined receiving from me the note of Colonel J. W. Webb, asking
whether you were correctly reported in the Globe, in what you are
there represented to have said of him in this House, on the 12th instant,
you will please say whether you did not remark, in substance, that, in
declining to receive the note, you hoped I would not consider it in any
respect disrespectful to me; and that the ground on which you rested
your declining to receive the note was distinctly this: that you could
not consent to get yourself into personal difficulties with conductors of
public journals, for what you might think proper to say in debate upon
this floor, in discharge of your duties as a representative of the people;
and that you did not rest your objection in our interview upon any per-
sonal objections to Colonel Webb as a gentleman.
- “Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“HoN. JonATHAN CILLEY. . - . J. GRAVES.
“It will be observed that the note which Mr. Graves bore is described
by him as the note of Colonel J. W. Webb, asking whether Mr. Cilley
94 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
was correctly reported in the Globe, in what he was there represented to have
said in the House of Representatives, on the 12th instant. But it will be
perceived that the note itself, though it is thus described by Mr. Graves
whenever he speaks of it afterward, does not contain that inquiry.
“Mr. Cilley, on the same day, personally delivered to Mr. Graves the
following note in reply:–
- “House of Representatives, February 21, 1838.
“The note which you just placed in my hands has been received.
In reply, I have to state that in your interview with me this morning,
when you proposed to deliver a communication from Colonel Webb, of
the New York Courier and Enquirer, I declined to receive it because
I chose to be drawn into no controversy with him. I neither affirmed
nor denied anything in regard to his character; but when you remarked
that this course on my part might place you in an unpleasant situation,
I stated to you, and now repeat, that I intended by the refusal no dis-
respect to you. -
“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“HON. W. J. GRAVES. JoNATHAN CILLEY.
On Thursday, the day following, Mr. Graves sent his second note to
Mr. Cilley, which was delivered to him in his seat, during the session of
the House, by Mr. Menefee, of Kentucky, the latter accompanying its
delivery with an expression of the hope that Mr. Cilley would perceive
the propriety of relieving Mr. Graves from a position which was painful
to him. Mr. Cilley remarked that the note should be attended to. It
is as follows:– -
“House of Representatives, February 22, 1838.
“SIR,-Your note of yesterday, in reply to mine of that date, is
inexplicit, unsatisfactory, and insufficient. Among other things in this,
that, in your declining to receive Colonel Webb's communication, it
does not disclaim any exception to him personally as a gentleman. I
have, therefore, to inquire whether you declined to receive his communica-
tion on the ground of any personal exception to him as a gentleman or a
man of honor # A categorical answer is expected. -
“Very respectfully,
“HoN. J. CILLEY. sº WM. J. GRAVES.
Mr. Cilley, on the same day, returned the following reply, by Mr.
Duncan, of Ohio: — ** -
“House of Representatives, February 22, 1838.
“SIR,-Your note of this date has just been placed in my hands. I
regret that mine of yesterday was unsatisfactory to you ; but I cannot
admit the right on your part to propound the question to which you ask
a categorical answer, and therefore decline any further response to it.
- “Very respectfully,
“HON. W. J. GRAVES. - JonATHAN CILLEY.
On Friday, the 23d of February, Mr. Wise presented to Mr. Cilley,
at his boarding-house, a few minutes before 12 o'clock, M., a challenge
from Mr. Graves. -
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 95
“Washington City, February 23, 1838.
“As you have declined accepting a communication which I bore to
you from Colonel Webb, and as, by your note of yesterday, you have
refused to decline on grounds which would exonerate me from all re-
sponsibility growing out of the affair, I am left no other alternative but
to ask that satisfaction which is recognized among gentlemen. My
friend, Hon. Henry A. Wise, is authorized by me to make the arrange-
ments suitable to the occasion. Your obedient servant,
“HON. J. CILLEY. WM. J. GRAVES.
On the evening of the same day, about the hour of 5 o'clock, Mr.
Jones, the Delegate from Wisconsin, delivered to Mr. Graves, in the
room of Mr. Wise, and in his presence, an acceptance of the challenge.
- “Washington City, February 23, 1838.
“Your note of this morning has been received. My friend, General
Jones, will “make the arrangements suitable to the occasion.’
“Your obedient servant,
“HON. W. J. GRAVES. JONATHAN CILLEY.
Mr. Jones immediately submitted the following propositions to Mr.
Wise: —
“Washington, February 23, 1838.
“SIR,-Mr. Cilley proposes to meet Mr. Graves, at such place as
may be agreed upon between us, to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, M. The
weapons to be used on the occasion shall be rifles; the parties placed
side by side, at eighty yards' distance from each other; to hold the
rifles horizontally at arm's length, downwards; the rifles to be cocked
and triggers set; the words to be, ‘Gentlemen, are you ready?’ After
which, neither answering ‘No, the words shall be, in regular succession,
‘Fire, — one, two, three, four.' Neither party shall fire before the word
‘fire, nor after the word ‘four.” The positions of the parties at the ends
of the line to be determined by lot. The second of the party losing the
position shall have the giving of the word. The dress to be ordinary
winter clothing, and subject to the examination of both parties. Each
party may have on the ground, besides his second, a surgeon, and two
other friends. The seconds, for execution of their respective trusts,
are allowed to have a pair of pistols each, on the ground, but no other
person shall have any weapon. The rifles to be loaded in the presence
of the seconds. Should Mr. Graves not be able to procure a rifle by the
time prescribed, time shall be allowed for that purpose. *
- “Your very obedient servant,
“HON. HENRY A. WISE. -- GEO. W. Jones.
At 9 o'clock, P. M., Mr. Wise replied:—
º “Washington, February 23, 1838.
“SIR,-The terms arranging the meeting between Mr. Graves and
Mr. Cilley, which you presented to me this evening, though unusual
and objectionable, are accepted, with the understanding that the rifles
are to be loaded with a single ball, and that neither party is to raise his
weapon from the Jºã horizontal position until the word “fire.’
96 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
“I will inform you, sir, by the hour of 11 o'clock, A. M., to-morrow,
whether Mr. Graves has been able to procure a rifle, and, consequently,
whether he will require a postponement of the time of meeting.
“Your very obedient servant,
“HON. GEO. W. JoMES. HENRY A. WISE.
About 8 o’clock, A. M., on the 24th, Mr. Jones left at Mr. Wise's
room the following note, to wit: —
“Washington City, D. C., February 24, 1838.
“SIR,--I will receive, at Doctor Reilly's, on F Street, any commu-
nication you may see properto make me, until 11 o'clock, A. M., to-day.
“Respectfully, your obedient servant,
“HON. H. A. WISE. GEO. W. JONES.
“Dr. Reilly's, F Street, February 24, 1838, 10 o'clock, A. M.
“SIR, -I have called at this place, in conformity with your note of
this morning, to inform you that Mr. Graves has not as yet been able
to procure a rifle and put it in order, and cannot be ready by 12
o'clock, M., to-day. He is desirous, however, to have the meeting
to-day, if possible, and I will inform you by half-past 12 o'clock, M.,
to-day, what time to procure and prepare a weapon he will require.
- “Very respectfully, &c.,
“HON. GEO. W. JoNES. HENRY A. WISE.
Afterwards, Mr. Jones left at Mr. Wise's room the following note,
to wit: — •
“Washington, February 24, 1838, 10% A. M.
“Your note dated at 10 o'clock to-day is received. In reply, I have
the pleasure to inform you that I have in my possession an excellent
rifle, in good order, which is at the service of Mr. Graves.
* “Very respectfully, &c.,
“HON. H. A. WISE. GEO. W. JoWES.
Afterwards, Mr. Jones sent to Mr. Wise's room the following note,
to wit: — \
“Washington, February 24, 1838, 11 A. M.
.* SIR,-Through the politeness of my friend, Doctor Duncan, I now
tender to you, for the use of Mr. Graves, the rifle referred to in my
note of 10; A. M. this morning.
. “Respectfully, your obedient servant,
“HON. H. A. WISE. GEO. W. JoMEs.
“And with this note, a rifle and powder-flask and balls were left at
Mr. Wise's room. 4. &
“The rifle was procured by Mr. Jones, and sent by him to Mr. Wise,
in accordance with a previous request of Mr. Wise, or in consequence
of a conversation between them. Mr. Jones says it was in strict accord-
ance with the request of Mr. Wise; and Mr. Wise says he had a conver-
sation with Mr. Jones upon the subject, requested Mr. Jones to inform
him where one could be obtained, and has no doubt that it was in con-
sequence of this conversation that Mr. Jones sent the rifle, and that he
acted with the best motive in sending it.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 97
“Mr. Wise having received the last note, called on Mr. Jones, and
informed him that Mr. Graves had procured another rifle, and would
be ready for the meeting at 3 o'clock, P. M. The parties met by
arrangement on the road to Marlborough, in Maryland. Mr. Cilley was
accompanied by his second, Mr. Jones, by Mr. Bynum of North Caro-
lina, and Colonel James W. Schaumburg, as his friends, and by Doctor
Duncan of Ohio, as his surgeon. Mr. Graves was attended by Mr.
Wise, as his second, by Mr. Crittenden, Senator from Kentucky, and
Mr. Menefee of Kentucky, as his friends, and by Dr. Foltz, of this city,
as his surgeon; and all proceeded thence about 2 o'clock, P. M. to the
place of meeting. Mr. Jones and Mr. Wise immediately marked off
the ground. The line of fire was at right angles with the rays of the
sun. The choice of positions fell by lot to Mr. Wise, and Mr. Jones
had the giving of the word. Mr. Wise chose the position at the north-
westerly end of the line. The distance was about ninety-two yards.
There was a strong wind falling on the line of fire at an angle of about
forty-five degrees against Mr. Cilley.
“The position of Mr. Graves was near a wood, partly sheltered by it.
and that of Mr. Cilley was on higher ground, and in the open fields.
The calibre of Mr. Graves's rifle was nearly twice as large as that of
Mr. Cilley's, and would receive a ball of about eighty to the pound;
while the rifle of Mr. Cilley would receive a ball of about one hundred
and thirty-two to the pound. Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Hawes, both mem-
bers of the House from Kentucky, were at some distance off, as specta-
tors. Mr. Wise had two rifles on the ground, one of which, not being
loaded, remained, by consent, in one of the carriages. The hack-drivers
were on the ground; and two other persons (Grafton Powell and James
F. Brown) were present, without the consent of either party or their
friends. Shortly after 3 o'clock, P. M., the parties exchanged shots,
according to the terms of meeting. Mr. Cilley fired first, before he had
fully elevated his piece; and Mr. Graves one or two seconds afterwards.
Both missed. Mr. Graves could not have reserved his fire had he been
disposed to do so.
“The friends assembled at the request of Mr. Wise, and Mr. Jones
inquired of Mr. Wise whether his friend (Mr. Graves) was satisfied.
Mr. Wise immediately said, ‘Mr. Jones, these gentlemen have come
here without animosity toward each other; they are fighting merely
upon a point of honor; cannot Mr. Cilley assign some reason for not
receiving at Mr. Graves's hands Colonel Webb's communication, or
make some disclaimer which will relieve Mr. Graves from his position?’
Mr. Jones replied, “While the challenge is impending, Mr. Cilley can
make no explanation.” Mr. Wise said, ‘The exchange of shots sus-
º; the challenge, and the challenge is suspended for explanation.’
r. Jones thereupon went to Mr. Cilley and returned; and after a few
words in regard to putting in writing what had been and might be said,
Mr. Jones proceeded to say, ‘I am authorizéd by my friend, Mr. Cilley,
to say, that in declining to receive the note from Mr. Graves, purport-
ing to be from gº he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves,

98 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
because he entertained for him then, as he now does, the highest respect
and the most kind feelings; but that he declined to receive the note
because he chose not to be drawn into any controversy with Colonel
Webb,” or ‘he refuses to disclaim disrespect for Colonel Webb, because
he does not choose to be drawn into an expression of opinion as to him.’
Both expressions were used in the course of the conversation.
“After a consultation on each side, Mr. Wise said to Mr. Jones, ‘This
answer leaves Mr. Graves precisely in the position in which he stood
when the challenge was sent.” From an examination of the evidence,
it will be perceived that, although the language made use of by the per-
sons present, in narrating what passed on this occasion, is not the same,
yet there is no substantial difference between them. Mr. Cilley reas-
serted the ground which he had assumed in the correspondence; that
he declined to receive the note of Webb, because he chose to be drawn
into no controversy with him; that he refused to disclaim any personal
exception tº Webb as a gentleman or man of honor, because he would
neither aſſºfim nor deny anything in regard to his character; and that in
declining to receive the demand of explanation, he had intended no
disrespect to Mr. Graves. Mr. Cilley even went further, and declared
that he entertained for him the highest respect and the most kind feelings.
The position of Graves was, therefore, not changed, except so far as the
peril of life by Mr. Cilley in defence of his own position, and the subse-
quent voluntary avowal of the highest respect and the most kind feel-
ings for the individual who had put him in jeopardy, may be supposed
to have changed it.
“Mr. Crittenden says that it was now ‘urged on the part of Mr.
Graves, that Mr. Cilley ought to make some such explanation or decla-
ration as had been proposed, for the satisfaction of Mr. Graves; while
on the part of Mr. Cilley it was urged that Mr. Graves ought to be sat-
isfied with the exchange of shots, without any such explanation or
declaration.” All the friends of Mr. Cilley urged that Mr. Graves
should now be satisfied, and that the affair should now terminate, with-
out requiring from Mr. Cilley any further concession beyond what he
had already make. Doctor Foltz said he ‘thought the affair should
end here; there was no personal ill-feeling between the parties; that
they had both proved themselves men of honor and courage; and that
Mr. Cilley's opinion of Colonel Webb could not be changed by the far-
ther exchange of shots or the receipt of wounds.” Mr. ë. WaS
understood, by nearly all present, to concur in these views, though it
seems he did not intend so to be understood, but acquiesced with Mr.
Wise and Mr. Menefee in insisting that the fight should go on, unless
Mr. Cilley would make the concession which had been demanded. Ac-
cordingly the challenge was renewed, the parties resumed their posi-
tions, and again exchanged shots in the manner prescribed by the terms
of meeting. Mr. Graves fired first, before he had fully elevated his
piece; Mr. Cilley fired about two seconds afterward. . They both
missed. Mr. Cilley could not have reserved his fire had he been dis-
posed to do so. Mr. Jones, Mr. Bynum, Mr. Schaumburg, Dr. Foltz,
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 99
Mr. Wise, and Mr. Fuller thought, from the motions and appearance of
Mr. Graves, that he was hit. He at once said, ‘I must have another
shot.’ Mr. Wise says, “He positively, peremptorily, and repeatedly
insisted upon another shot.’
“The seconds and friends again assembled, and the challenge was
again withdrawn. Mr. Jones said, ‘Mr. Wise, my friend, in coming to
the ground and exchanging shots with Mr. Graves, has shown to the
world that, in declining to receive the note of Colonel Webb, he did not
do so because he dreaded a controversy. He has shown himself a brave
man, and disposed to render satisfaction to Mr. Graves. I do think
that he has done so, and that the matter should end here.” Mr. Wise
replied, in substance, ‘Mr. Jones, Mr. Cilley has already expressed his
respect for Mr. Graves, in the written correspondence, and Mr. Graves,
does not require of Mr. Cilley a certificate of character for Colonel
Webb; he considers himself bound not only to preserve the respect due
to himself, but to defend the honor of his friend, Colonel Webb. Mr.
Graves only insists that he has not borne the note of a man who is not
a man of honor and not a gentleman.” The challenge was again re-
newed, and while the friends were loading the rifles, Mr. Wise and Mr.
Jones walked apart, and Mr. Wise asked Mr. Jones ‘if Mr. Cilley
could not assign the reason for declining to receive the note of Colonel
Webb, that he (Mr. Cilley) did not hold himself accountable to Colonel
Webb for words spoken in debate 2' Mr. Jones replied, that ‘..Mr.
Cilley would not assign that reason, because he did not wish to be un-
derstood as expressing the opinion whether he was or was not account-
able for words spoken in debate.” Wise then asked Jones whether
‘Mr. Cilley would not say that, in declining to receive the note of
Colonel Webb, he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, either directly or
indirectly?’ To which Mr. Jones replied affirmatively, adding, ‘Mr.
Cilley entertains the highest respect for Mr. Graves, but declined to
receive the note because he chose to be drawn into no controversy with
Colonel Webb.” Mr. Jones says that Mr. Wise took no exception to
this answer, but continued to require other concessions, as stated, to be
made.
“Mr. Wise says that in making that proposition he went beyond his
instructions; and that the proposition and the response to it were not
communicated to Mr. Graves, but were communicated both to Mr.
Crittenden and to Mr. Menefee. Mr. Crittenden says he does not re-
member to have heard them, during the progress of the contest, and
that he does not remember to have given any advice or opinion upon
them. Mr. Menefee remembers the proposition and reply, and posi-

tively or by acquiescence gave the advice that the reply, thus qualified,
was but a reiteration, in substance, of the originel ground assumed by
Mr. Cilley, and held to be inadmissible by Mr. Graves. Mr. Wise had
in his possession, on the ground, three written propositions, neither of
which was exhibited, nor their substance submitted in any other man-
ner than as before stated. - -
“Mr. Jones, Mr. Bynum, Mr. Schaumburg, Dr. Duncan, and Dr.
:
*
*
*
*
º
*
100 CHALLENGES AND DUELs.
* * * *
Foltz now objected, in the strongest language, against the further
prosecution of the contest, and insisted that it should now cease, and
that Mr. Graves should declare himself satisfied. Mr. Crittenden was
understood again, by nearly all present, to concur in these views; but
it appears from his testimony, that he acquiesced in the views of Mr.
Wise and Mr. Menefee. They insisted that the fight should go on,
unless Mr. Cilley would make the concessions which were demanded;
either a direct disclaimer of any personal exception to James Watson
Webb, as a gentleman and a man of honor, in declining to receive his
note, or an indirect disclaimer, by placing the refusal to receive it upon
the ground of privilege; both of which Mr. Cilley, in the correspond-
ence and throughout the affair upon the field, had refused to do, and,
persisting in it, had twice received the fire of his antagonist.
“Immediately previous to the last exchange of shots, Mr. Wise said to
Mr. Jones, “If this matter is not terminated this shot, and is not settled,
I will propose to shorten the distance.’ To which Mr. Jones replied,
“After this shot, without effect, I will entertain the proposition.” Mr.
Graves had directed Mr. Wise, if they missed repeatedly, to prevent a
prolongation of the affair by proposing closer quarters; in consequence
of which Mr. Wise made the proposition, which would have aggravated
the severity of the terms. The rifles being loaded, the parties resumed
their stations, and fired the third time, very nearly together. Mr. Cil-
ley was shot through the body. He dropped his rifle, beckoned to
one near him, and said to him, “I am shot, put both his hands to his
wound, fell, and in two or three minutes expired.
“Early in the day on which he fell, an agreement was entered into
between James Watson Webb, Daniel Jackson, and William H. Morell,
to arm themselves, repair to the room of Mr. Cilley, and force him to
fight Webb with pistols on the spot, or to pledge his word of honor to
give Webb a meeting before Mr. Graves; and if Mr. Cilley would do
neither, to shatter his right arm. They accordingly took measures to
ascertain whether Mr. Cilley was at his lodgings, and finding that he
was not, they proceeded, well armed, to Bladensburg, where it was said
the duel between Mr. Graves and Mr. Cilley was to take place. Before
arriving there, it was agreed between Webb, Jackson, and Morell, that
Webb should approach Mr. Cilley, claim the quarrel, insist on fighting
him, and assure him if he aimed his rifle at Mr. Graves, he [Webb]
would shoot him [Mr. Cilley] on the spot. It was supposed by them
that Mr. Graves, or Mr. Wise, or some of the party, would raise a
weapon at Webb, whereupon it was agreed that Webb should instantly
shoot Mr. Cilley, and that they should then defend themselves in the
best way they could. -
“Not finding the parties at Bladensburg, they followed in pursuit to
the old Magazine, and thence to the shore of the Potomac, near the
arsenal, at Greenleaf Point, whence, it being after 3 o'clock, P. M., they
returned to the city to await the result. “It is unnecessary to add,’
say they, in a statement drawn up by Webb, signed by Jackson and
Morell, and published in the New York Courier and Enquirer, ‘what
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. IOI
would have been the course of Colonel Webb, if Mr. Graves, instead of
Mr. Cilley, had been injured. Suffice it to say, that it was sanctioned
by us; and however much we deplore it, we could not doubt but the
extraordinary position in which he would have been placed would have
warranted the course determined upon.’ It is difficult to imagine what
is here darkly shadowed forth, if it be not that, had Mr. Cilley survived
the encounter with Mr. Graves, and had the latter suffered in it, it
would then have been the fate of Mr. Cilley to have encountered an
assassin.
“Such were the material facts and circumstances which attended the
death of Mr. Cilley. The committee, entertaining the opinion that the
cause of the challenge was the cause of the death of Mr. Cilley, have
sought for it where it should be found in the most authentic form, in the
correspondence of the parties.
“Mr. Cilley declined to receive the note of Mr. Webb, because he
“chose to be drawn into no controversy with him.’ He placed his
refusal to receive a demand for explanation of the words spoken by him
in debate, solely on the ground of his own voluntary election, without
assigning any other reason. “He chose to be drawn into no contro-
versy’ with Webb. He declared, at the same time, that he neither
affirmed nor denied anything in regard to Webb's character, in declin-
ing to receive the note. He declared further, that he had before stated,
and now repeated, that he intended by the refusal no disrespect to Mr.
Graves, and that he had said this only in reply to a remark of Mr.
Graves, that this course might place him in an unpleasant situation.
“Mr. Graves, in his second note, takes but one exception to this first
note of Mr. Cilley. ‘It does not disclaim any exception to him (Webb)
personally as a gentleman.” He says: ‘Your note of yesterday, in re-
ply to mine of that date, is inexphicit, unsatisfactory, and insufficient;
among other things in this, – that, in your declining to receive Colonel
Webb's communication, it does not disclaim any exception to him,
personally, as a gentleman. I have, therefore, he adds, “to inquire
whether you declined to receive his communication on the ground of
any personal exception to him as a gentleman or a man of honor 2 A
categorical answer is expected.’ -
“Mr. Cilley, in his second note, regrets that his first was unsatisfac-
tory, but cannot admit the right of Mr. Graves to propound the question,
and therefore he declines any further response to it. -
“It is difficult to conceive that Mr. Graves, upon this correspondence
of Mr. Cilley, could have challenged him for intending disrespect to Mr.
Graves; for any such intention was positively disclaimed, and, as ap-
pears, in a most unexceptionable and courteous manner, in reply to a
suggestion of his own, which called for it; or for affirming or denying
anything in regard to the character of Webb, in declining to receive
his note; for any such affirmation or denial is also disclaimed, in equally
ositive terms. Mr. Cilley had declined to receive a call from James
W. Webb, for explanation of words spoken in debate in the House
of Representatives, and had Pºt his refusal solely on the ground that he
9 e”
102 CHALLENGES AND I) UELS.
chose to be drawn into no controversy with him ; but he is pressed fur-
ther, and interrogated beyond this limit which he had assigned to hirn-
self, and a categorical answer is demanded to the question whether he
declined on the ground of any personal exception to Webb as a gentle-
man or a man of honor. He denies the right to interrogate him in this
manner for declining a call, which his right and duty, as a member of
the House of Representatives, and the just maintenance of the privi-
leges of that body, required him to decline; and, denying the right to
interrogate, he therefore refused to submit to answer any further. And
it was because he refused to receive the note, and refused to answer
any further, that he was challenged by another of the same body.
“This matter is not left open to inference or argument. The cause
of the challenge appears in a manner which precludes all doubt. It is
still further specified and avowed by Mr. Graves himself, in his own
note, which contains the challenge. It is stated clearly, unequivocally,
and with the utmost precision, and is assigned expressly, and in form,
as the cause for which the challenge is given. “As you have declined
accepting a communication which I bore to you from Colonel Webb,
and as |by your note of yesterday you have refused to decline on
grounds which would exonerate me from all responsibility growing out
of the affair, I am left no other alternative but to ask that satisfaction
which is recognized among gentlemen.” Mr. Cilley, by his ‘note of
yesterday, had refused to answer the question to which a ‘categorical
answer” had been demanded: that is to say, “whether he declined to
receive Colonel Webb's communication on the ground of any personal
exception to him as a gentleman or a man of honor.’ The ground of
challenge, therefore, is, by Mr. Graves himself, expressly stated to be,
that Mr. Cilley declined to receive the communication from Webb, and,
by his note of February 22d, refused to answer that question, touching
the honor of Webb. - **
“This was the open and avowed cause, set forth and presented to Mr.
Cilley, by which he was guided, and upon which he acted, in a matter
involving the utmost extremity of human responsibility. For this cause,
and for this alone, he was challenged and fell by the hand of Mr.
Graves; unless it be admissible to believe, that, after all verbal commu-
nication had ceased between him and his antagonist, and the difference
had assumed the form exclusively of a written correspondence between
them, he was challenged and fell for a cause not set up in that corre-
spondence, not put forth as a ground of complaint, not made known to
him or his friends as a matter of grievance, and in regard to which,
therefore, it may be believed, he was profoundly ignorant, and had no
º afforded him in any way of voluntary satisfaction or ex-
planation. •e \
“Nor is there anything in what subsequently occurred, as disclosed
by the joint statement of the seconds, or the testimony of any witness,
which gives color to a suggestion, that there was, at any time afterward,
a change of the ground of controversy.
“No communication whatever, upon the subject of difference, took
CHAL LENGES AND DUELS. 103
place between the principals, their respective seconds, or friends, after
the challenge was given, before the first exchange of shots. Of course,
no change of the ground of controversy could have occurred until
after Mr. Cilley had received the fire of his antagonist, and had haz-
arded his life in defence of the position which he had assumed in the
correspondence. After the first exchange of shots, as already shown,
Mr. Cilley reasserted his original position, and. Mr. Wise insisted that
what was then said by Mr. Jones only placed ‘the affair upon the
original grounds,’ and left ‘Mr. Graves precisely in the position in which
he stood when the challenge was sent.’ There was, in fact, no change
whatever in the position of the parties, except what arose from the cir-
cumstance that Mr. Cilley had given Mr. Graves the satisfaction
demanded of an exchange of shots, and from the further circumstance
that Mr. Cilley not only repeated the disclaimer that he had meant no
disrespect to Mr. Graves, but positively avowed, also, that he enter-
tained for him the highest respect and the most kind feelings.
“In this state of the controversy the challenge is renewed, and Mr.
Cilley again puts his life in jeopardy. The challenge being once more
suspended, he again insists upon his original position, that he had de-
clined to receive the demand for explanation of the words spoken by
him in debate, because he chose to be drawn into no controversy with
Webb, and that he would assign no other reason; and while, on the
other hand, it was insisted for Mr. Graves, that he considered himself
bound not only to preserve the respect due to himself, but to defend the
honor of his friend, Colonel Webb, and that he only insisted ‘that he
had not borne the note of a man who was not a man of honor and not
a gentleman,” Mr. Cilley replied affirmatively to a proposition sub-
mitted on the part of Mr. Graves, that, in declining to receive the note,
he meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, either directly or indirectly; and
declared that he entertained the highest respect for him, but declined to
receive the note, because he chose to be drawn into no controversy with
Colonel Webb. He excluded, in direct and positive terms, every pos-
sibility of disrespect to Mr. Graves, directly or indirectly, and in effect
only insisted on his right to decline a demand for explanation of words
spoken in debate, because he chose to be drawn into no controversy
upon the subject, without assigning any other reason. But he was in-
terrogated for another reason, and another reason was demanded; and
for resisting that demand the challenge was again renewed, and he fell
a victim in defence of what he conceived to be his rights as an indi-
vidual, or as a representative of the people in the House of Repre-
sentatives. -
_“The committee were disposed to pursue this inquiry in every form.
Not content with tracing the cause of the challenge in the written cor-
respondence, in the assignment of reasons for the challenge under Mr.
Graves's own hand, and in the various propositions which were sub-
mitted on the field, from the beginning to the end of the contest, they
proceeded to put to every witness who was believed to know anything
upon the subject the direct inquiry, whether ‘Mr. Graves or his sec-
104 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
*,
ond, at any time before Mr. Cilley fell, communicated to Mr. Cilley, his
second, or attendant friends, that a question of veracity between Mr.
Graves and Mr. Cilley was a point of difficulty to be adjusted 2’ Mr.
Jones answered, “Certainly not to me, nor to Mr. Cilley, at any time,
to my knowledge, either before or during the day the duel was fought.
I did not hear of the existence of such a question until the Sunday or
Monday after Mr. Cilley was killed. The written correspondence
between Mr. Graves and Mr. Cilley does not show the existence of any
such question of veracity.’ Mr. Bynum answered, ‘I heard no such
communication, directly or indirectly, from either Mr. Graves or his
second, made or intimated to Mr. Cilley or any of his friends, before he
fell.’ Mr. Schaumburg answered, ‘I did not understand that there was
a “question of veracity” between the parties, nor was there any conver-
sation on the subject.’ Dr. Duncan answered, “They never did, to my
knowledge. I never heard the question of veracity assigned, during
Mr. Cilley's life, as the cause of any, difficulty.” Mr. Pierce answered,
‘I never held any conversation with Mr. Graves, or “his second or
attendant friends,” in relation to the late fatal duel, nor did I ever hear
until subsequently to the 24th of February last, that any question of
veracity between Mr. Graves and Mr. Cilley was a point of difficulty to
be adjusted.' Dr. Foltz answered, “They did not.’ Mr. Wise answered,
‘I did not know what Mr. Graves may have communicated to Mr.
Cilley at any time before he fell, as to a question of veracity between
them. I presume they both knew what had passed between them ver-
bally. I believe that I did state to Mr. Jones, or to other friends of Mr.
Cilley, on the ground, that Mr. Graves said Mr. Cilley had assigned to
him the reason for declining to receive the note of Colonel Webb, that
he did not choose to be accountable for words spoken in debate. I
think I so informed Mr. Jones, when I asked him if Mr. Cilley could
not assign this reason on the ground ; but of this I am not positive.’
Mr. Crittenden answered, ‘Not that I know of. I know of no com-
munication between any of these parties other than as before stated, so
far as I now recollect. Whether those communications involve any
such question, it is not for me to decide; no such question was made,
in terms, that I know of.” Mr. Menefee answered, “Mr. Graves had no
communication of any kind with Mr. Cilley, his second or attendant
friends, and of course did not communicate to them that such a question
was a point of difficulty. Nor did the second of Mr. Graves, as far as
I remember, make such a communication, except so far as may be im-
plied from the propositions made by him, in connection with the corre-
spondence, &c. One, at least, of the friends of Mr. Graves, in the
presence of his second, made frequent attempts to direct the attention
of the second and friends of Mr. Cilley to the difficulty which was pre-
sented by the terms of Mr. Graves's first note (giving his version of
what Mr. Cilley had said), and the ground which Mr. Cilley had subse-
quently assumed. But it was not referred to, in terms, as a question of
veracity. It was believed that Mr Cilley had honorable grounds, which
would be satisfactory to Mr. Graves, and at the same time compatible
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 105
with the truth, which would effect the object, without making directly
such a question while efforts were pending to accommodate. Whether
the views thus expressed were communicated to Mr. Cilley, I know
not. For the character of what occurred on this point, so far as I par-
ticipated in it, the committee are referred to my general statement.’
Mr. Graves said to Dr. Foltz, on the way to the field, ‘that he had been
the bearer of a note from Colonel Webb to Mr. Cilley, inquiring if Mr.
Cilley had been correctly reported in the Globe. Mr. Cilley j to
receive the note, and declined giving his reasons, which implicated me,
in consequence of which I challenged him, but I have no personal ani-
mosity toward him.’ Mr. Wise said on the field, ‘Mr. Jones, these gen-
tlemen have come here without animosity toward each other; they are
fighting merely upon a point of honor. These men have nothing
against each other; they are merely settling a point of honor.”
“This concurrent testimony of all, without exception, taken in con-
nection with the written correspondence, the various propositions and
answers on the field, and the further fact, that Mr. Cilley had not been
informed that Mr. Graves had undertaken to repeat to others any ver-
bal communication between them, or that any misapprehension or mis-
understanding existed between them on that subject, utterly repels the
suggestion, that any question of veracity had arisen, or had been made,
or was the cause of the challenge or the death of Mr. Cilley. Indeed,
any misapprehension on that subject would have given no more just
ground of animosity, and least of all of the highly vindictive feelings
necessarily aroused by a question of veracity, than the very evident
misapprehension which Mr. Graves labored under, in regard to some
parts of the note of James Watson Webb of which he was the bearer.
“The committee will not, injustice to Mr. Graves, harbor the belief, that
there were rankling secretly in his bosom any vindictive or hostile feelings
towards Mr. Cilley, growing out of any question of personal veracity,
and prompting him to carry on a deadly warfare under another pretext,
not only without a direct and explicit disclosure of the real cause of
difficulty, such as would have left no misapprehension on the mind
of any one, but under circumstances which misled the other party and
his friends, and left him, under that false impression, to the forfeit of his
life. .
“The committee hāve, therefore, come to the conclusion, that the
words spoken by Mr. Cilley in debate in the House of Representatives,
the refusal of Mr. Cilley to receive a demand for explanation of those
words, and his refusal to assign any other reason for it than that he
chose to be drawn into no difficulty upon the subject, were the causes
which led to the death of Mr. Cilley, under the circumstances which
have been substantially detailed. *
“It remains to inquire whether there has been a breach of the privi-
leges of the House. - ---
“It is a breach of the highest constitutional privileges of the House,
and of the most sacred rights of the people in the person of their repre-

sentative, to demand, in a hostile manner, an explanation of words spoken
106 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
in debate; to be the bearer of such a demand; to demand a reason for
refusing to receive it, beyond the mere voluntary election of the mem-
ber interrogated ; or to demand, under any circumstances, any reason
at all. No member can be questioned in a hostile way, and put to his
plea, and yield to it, without subjecting himself to great disadvantage
in the estimation of many, and impairing his influence and his useful-
ness as a member. It is a still more aggravated breach of the privi-
leges of the House, and of the rights of the people in the person of
their representative, to challenge a member, and to slay him in combat,
for refusing to comply with any such demand. It is the highest offence
which can be committed against either House of Congress, against the
freedom of speech and of debate therein, against the spirit and the
substance of that constitutional provision, that, for any speech or debate
in either House, the members shall not be questioned in any other place,
and violates essentially the right of perfect immunity elsewhere for
words spoken in debate here, which is essential to the independence of
Congress, and to the existence of constitutional liberty. And when
this offence is committed by a member, it calls for the exercise of the
highest powers of the House to purge itself of the evil, to maintain
effectually its rights and privileges, and to preserve inviolable this im-
munity, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, not for the sake of the
individual, but for his constituents and for the country.
“The present case is without any circumstance of extenuation. A
member of the House, in a manner most strictly parliamentary, on an
occasion most appropriate, in language most decorous and moderate, in
defence of the honor of the House against an anonymous and unfounded
charge of corruption, had alluded to the published records of former
proceedings with perfect truth and accuracy; had, in obedience to his
duty, declined a hostile demand for explanation in a manner in which
the committee can discover no cause of offence; had, respectfully, with
expressions of regret, declined to admit the right to interrogate him
further; had disclaimed all disrespect, directly or indirectly, toward
his antagonist, and avowed for him the highest respect and the kindest
feelings; and after all this, avowed without hostility, and against the
strongest protestations of others, he was required, fatally, to expose him-
self to the third discharge of a rifle. On the other hand, Mr. Graves,
a member of the House, voluntarily and unnecessarily became the
bearer of a demand upon another member in attendance, for expla-
nation of words spoken in debate; he presented it in the House while
the House was in session; he demanded a reason for the refusal, beyond
the voluntary election of that member to be drawn into no difficulty
upon the subject; which being withheld, he then challenged him in
this city, and slew him in this vicinity, while Congress was in session.
“Every step of Mr. Graves in this progress involved him deeper
and deeper in a breach of the privileges of the House, until their de-
struction was consummated in the person of Mr. Cilley. The eye of
reason can discover, in the whole course of Mr. Cilley, no offence
towards those who pursued him, except that given by alluding to the
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 107
records of Congress, in the faithful and upright discharge of his duty
as a member, which justly could have given no offence at all. Nor can
his death be vindicated or excused by any circumstance whatsoever,
not even by that custom, the relic of unenlightened and barbarous ages,
which was formerly supposed to be a proof of some degree of physical
courage, but is, in fact, a signal monument of the want of the higher at-
tribute of moral courage; which has, in these modern times, degenerated
into a game of chances and a scramble for undue advantages; which
can furnish no criterion for truth, justice, or honor, and deals out its in-
flictions of misery most severely upon the unoffending and the helpless;
which is deeply deplored by all men, even those who submit to it, and
is forbidden, in every stage of it, by all law, human and divine.
“It is not necessary, on the present occasion, to go into any consider-
ation of the general power of the House to punish for breach of privi-
lege, or to inquire into the origin and foundation of that power over
contempts, which has been asserted by the Parliament of Great Britain
from time immemorial, by every legislative body, by every judicial tri-
bunal, from the highest to the lowest, and repeatedly, by one or the
other House of Congress, and has been recognized as existing in the
House of Representatives by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Whether it be a power necessary to the continued existence of the
legislative body, or a power necessary to the free exercise of its legis-
lative functions, it is in either case a necessary power, strictly granted
by the Constitution, and as fully granted as if it were literally expressed.
But in the case of members, the Constitution has expressly granted the
power to punish for disorderly conduct, and has also expressly granted
the power, with the concurrence of two thirds, to expel a member
for any cause which two thirds of the House may deem sufficient.
“The committee, therefore, viewing the breach of the rights and
privileges of the House, on the part of Mr. Graves, to have been an
offence of this high character, against the vital principle of a deliber-
ative assembly and of representative government, is constrained, by a
sense of duty, to present to the House a resolution that he be expelled
therefrom. & {
“It has been decided by the House of Representatives, on a former
occasion, that it was a breach of privilege to send a challenge to a mem-
ber in attendance, or to be the bearer of such challenge. And it is
equally so to act as second to the challenger. In the present instance
it appears that Mr. Wise had no knowledge of the demand of expla-
nation which was borne by Mr. Graves, and had never seen the paper
until after the fatal catastrophe. But having been early consulted by
Mr. Graves upon the first letter of Mr. Cilley, and concurring with him
in his views of it, he bore the challenge to Mr. Cilley, and he acted
throughout as the second of the challenger, advising and insisting that
the fight should go on until Mr. Cilley fell. The committee, therefore,
deeming him deeply involved, under the circumstances which this case
#."; in a breach of the privileges of the House, report a reso-
ution that he deserves the decided censure of the House, and that he
be censured accordingly. -

108 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
“Mr. Jones had no knowledge of the affair until the determination
of Mr. Cilley had been formed as to the acceptance of the challenge,
and the time, mode, weapon, and other preliminaries of the meeting.
But he was the bearer of the acceptance, and acted throughout as the
second of the challenged party; and it is the opinion of the committee
that he was thereby involved in a breach of privilege, and that he be
censured therefor.
“In regard to the persons not principal nor seconds who were pres-
ent on the field, and expressed their opinions at the request of the par-
ties, without having advised, instigated, or procured the meeting, how-
ever they might be implicated in the courts of law, the committee enter-
tain doubts how far they would be involved in a breach of privilege;
and, under a strong conviction that the power of the House should be
exercised, never in a doubtful case, always with moderation, they con-
tent themselves with presenting the facts and circumstances, so far as
those persons are concerned, without proposing any action thereon.
“The committee entertain no doubt that James Watson Webb has
been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House; but they also
concur unanimously in the opinion, that if there be any real ground to
believe that a conspiracy to assassinate actually existed, as set forth in
that atrocious paper drawn up by him, signed by Daniel Jackson and
William H. Morell, sworn to by the latter, and published in the New
York Courier and Enquirer, he be left to the chastisement of the course
of law, and of public opinion, and that the House will consult its
own dignity and the public interest by bestowing upon him no further
notice.” :
CLARENCY, Prince of, and CHARLEs DE GontAUT, Duke of
Biron. In France, about the year 1581. The parties were
rival suitors to the heiress of the family of Caumont. Each
was attended by two seconds, who fought with the principals.
They met in a snow-storm, at daybreak. Biron and his seconds
arranged, in taking position, that the snow should drive into the
faces of their adversaries; and, by this device, the Prince and
his seconds were slain. Henry III., at the solicitation of the
Duke of Epernon, pardoned the triple murder. In the reign
of Henry IV., Biron became Admiral of France, and a Marshal,
and Ambassador to the Courts of Brussels and Queen Elizabeth.
But his star set in blood. He conspired against his royal friend,
and was executed, in 1602. Multitudes visited the church in
which his remains were deposited, in order to sprinkle his grave
with holy water. ,
X.
CLARENDoN, Lord. See Ossory, Lord.
, Captain in the British Navy. See Innes.
CLARY, Mons. See Valentine, Mons.
f
CLARKE,
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 109
CLAverING, General, and Mr. BARw ELL. In India, 1775.
These gentlemen were members of the Council of Bengal,
under the administration of Warren Hastings. They fought,
because the General said that Mr. Barwell “had taken money
in direct contradiction to his solemn oath.”
CLAVIJo, Don Joseph FLAXARDo, and BEAUMARCHAIs. Cla-
vijo loved a sister of Beaumarchais, but forsook her. This de-
sertion caused an affair of honor, which, with the attending cir-
cumstances, deprived the former of his employments and the
respect of his countrymen, and his life afterwards was passed
under a cloud. Clavijo was a Spanish scholar of note, – the
translator of Buffon's Natural History into his vernacular, and
Vice-Director of the Cabinet of Natural History.
CLAY, HENRY. This eminent statesman fought two duels. He
was the challenger in both. The first, in 1808, with Humphrey
Marshall, a fellow-member of the Legislature of Kentucky. Mr.
Marshall was a gentleman of talents, of high standing, and a
Federalist of great influence. He was the constant antagonist of
Mr. Clay in debate, and finally indulged in personal remarks so
denunciatory and severe, as to draw a message. They met.
They exchanged two or three shots, and retired from the field,
each slightly wounded. .
The second, in 1826, on the Virginia shore of the Potomac,
near Washington, with John Randolph. Mr. Clay, at this time,
was Secretary of State, Mr. Randolph, a Senator in Congress.
This duel, like that in 1808, was political. The particular cause
will appear in the extract from Mr. Benton's Thirty Years in
the Senate, appended to this notice. .
Never, in my judgment, has the utter, unconditional absurdity
and folly of duelling been so perfectly demonstrated, as in the
case before us. These two great men — unlike as they were —
loved one another, even in the hour of meeting in mortal com-
bat. But in the sudden fusion of political parties, and in events
which followed, they had become alienated, and nothing but the
magic influence of pistols — strangely enough — could induce
them to confess their love, either to themselves or to the world.
They can never disappear in American history. Their names
will stand indissolubly connected upon its pages. The Scott or
the Cooper of a future age, when the duello, as an existing code
for the adjustment of personal differences, shall have passed for
ever away, will seize upon the circumstances which preceded,
10 -
110 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
which attended, and which concluded the duel between them, as
the groundwork of a thrilling story, descriptive of the barbarity
of the age in which they lived. The writer of fiction will relate
that Clay and Randolph prepared to meet, and met, in deadly
strife, their hearts gushing—bursting, even — with tenderest so-
licitude, each for the other's safety; that the Virginian, when
told of the sleeping child, and of the unconscious tranquillity of
the wife of his adversary, rejoined, in tones as sweet as woman’s
own, “I shall do nothing on the morrow to disturb the sleep of
the child or the repose of the mother.” Stranger still, he will re-
late, that, on the ground, the same voice was heard to breathe, in
gentlest accent, “I would not have seen Mr. Clay fall mortally,
or even doubtfully wounded, for all the land that is watered by the
Ring of Floods and all his tributary streams.” . And so, too, he
will write down for wondering readers, that the lofty son of Ken-
tucky, the moment he had discharged his weapon, approached
his antagonist, and uttered, “I trust in God, my dear sir, you
are untouched ; after what has occurred, I would not have harmed
gou for a thousand worlds.” Then will come the explana-
tion, in which it will appear, that the public sentiment of the
time imperiously demanded this scene, in order that these emi-
nent men might continue to receive the courtesies of their com-
peers. * >
Some of the great actors in the political strifes which caused
this combat lived on in hostile word and act, and were never
reconciled.
It is gratifying to know that perfect amity existed between Mr.
Clay and the Virginia Senator ever after their hostile meeting.
When Mr. Randolph returned from Russia, he was broken in
health and spirit. Indeed, he was dying. But he would visit the
Senate-chamber, and seat himself near Mr. Clay, to grasp his
hand, to “hear his voice again.” -
, I now insert an account of the duel, from the pen of General
James Hamilton, of South Carolina, who was an eyewitness.
“The night before,” says this distinguished gentleman, “Mr. Ran-
dolph sent for me. I found him calm, but in a singularly kind and con-
fiding mood. He told me that he had something on his mind to tell me.
He then remarked, ‘Hamilton, I have determined to receive, without
returning, Clay's fire; nothing shall induce me to harm a hair of his
head; I will not make his wife a widow, nor his children orphans.
Their tears would be shed over his grave; but when the sod of Vir-
ginia rests on my bosom, there is not one in this wide world, not one
*-- 1 || ||ll il, ... ... --. . . . - ... . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 111
individual, to pay this tribute upon mine.’ His eyes filled, and resting
his head upon his hand, we remained some minutes silent. I replied,
, ‘My dear friend (for ours was a sort of posthumous friendship, bequeathed
by our mothers), I deeply regret that you have mentioned the subject
to me; for you call upon me to go to the field and see you shot down,
or to assume the responsibility, in regard to your own life, in sustaining
your determination to throw it away. But on this subject, a man's own
conscience and his own bosom are his best monitors. I will not advise,
but under the enormous and unprovoked personal insult you have
offered Mr. Clay, I cannot dissuade. I feel bound, however, to com-
municate to Colonel Tatnall your decision.’
“He begged me not to do so, and said he was very much afraid that
Tatnall would take the studs, and refuse to go out with him. I, how-
ever, sought Colonel Tatnall, and we repaired about midnight to Mr.
Randolph's lodgings, whom we found reading Milton's great poem. For
some moments he did not permit us to say one word in relation to the
approaching duel; and he at once commenced one of those delightful
criticisms on a passage of this poet, in which he was wont so enthusias-
tically to indulge. After a pause, Colonel Tatnall remarked, ‘Mr.
Randolph, I am told you have determined not to return Mr. Clay's fire;
I must say to you, my dear sir, if I am only to go out to see you shot
down, you must find some other friend.’ Mr. Randolph remarked, that
it was his determination. After much conversation on the subject, I
induced Colonel Tatnall to allow Mr. Randolph to take his own course,
as his withdrawal as one of his friends might lead to very injurious
misconstructions. At length, Mr. Randolph, smiling, said, “Well, Tat-
nall, I promise you one thing, if I see the devil in Clay's eye, and that,
with malice prepense, he means to take my life, I may change my
mind,”—a remark I knew he made merely to propitiate the anxieties
of his friend.
“Mr. Clay and himself met at 4 o'clock the succeeding evening, on
the banks of the Potomac. But he saw no ‘devil in Clay's eye, but a
man fearless, and expressing the mingled sensibility and firmness which
belonged to the occasion.
“I shall never forget this scene as long as I live. It has been my
misfortune to witness several duels, but I never saw one, at least in its
sequel, so deeply affecting. The sun was just setting behind the blue
hills of Randolph's own Virginia. Here were two of the most extra-
ordinary men our country in its prodigality had produced, about to
meet in mortal combat. Whilst Tatnall was loading Randolph's pistol,
I approached my friend, I believed for the last time. I took his hand;
there was not in its touch the quivering of one pulsation. He turned
to me and said, ‘Clay is calm, but not vindictive;—I hold my purpose,
Hamilton, in any event; remember this.”
“On handing him his pistol, Colonel Tatnall sprung the hair-trigger.
Mr. Randolph said, ‘Tatnall, although I am one of the best shots in
Virginia, with either pistol or gun, yet I never fire with a hair-trigger;
besides, I have a iſ: buckskin glove on, which will destroy the deli-


*
112 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
cacy of my touch, and the trigger may fly before I know where I am.’
But from his great solicitude for his friend, Tatnall insisted upon hair-
ing the trigger. On taking their position, the fact turned out as Mr.
Randolph anticipated, his pistol went off before the word, with the
muzzle down.
“The moment this event took place, General Jesup, Mr. Clay's
friend, called out that he would instantly leave the ground with his
friend, if that occurred again. Mr. Clay at once exclaimed, that it
was an accident, and begged that the gentleman might be allowed to go
on. On the word being given, Mr. Clay fired without effect, Mr. Ran-
dolph discharging his pistol in the air.
“The moment Mr. Clay saw that Mr. Randolph had thrown away his
fire, with a gush of sensibility, he instantly approached Mr. Randolph,
and said, with an emotion I never can forget, “I trust in God, my dear
sir, you are untouched; after what has occurred, I would not have
harmed you for a thousand worlds.”
The relation of the Hon. Thomas Hart Benton, who was also
an eyewitness, and anxiously interested for both parties, follows.
It is minute, and in the highest degree interesting. No reader
of this work will regret, I feel sure, that, abandoning several
attempts to abridge it, I retain it entire.
“It was Saturday, the first day of April, towards noon, the Senate not
being that day in session, that Mr. Randolph came to my room at Brown's
hotel, and (without explaining the reason of the question) asked me if
I was the blood-relation of Mrs. Clay ? I answered that I was, and he
immediately replied that that put an end to a request that he had wished
to make of me, and then went on to tell me that he had just received
a challenge from Mr. Clay, - had accepted it, — was ready to go out, —
and would apply to Colonel Tatnall to be his second. Before leaving,
he told me he would make my bosom the depository of a secret which
he should commit to no other person: it was that he did not intend to
fire at Mr. Clay. He told it to me because he wanted a witness of his
intention, and did not mean to tell it to his second, or anybody else; and
enjoined inviolable secrecy until the duel was over. This was the first
notice I had of the affair. The circumstances of the delivery of the
challenge I had from General Jesup, Mr. Clay's second, and they were
so perfectly characteristic of Mr. Randolph, that I give them in detail,
and in the General's own words.
“‘I was unable to see Mr. Randolph until the morning of the 1st of
April, when I called on him for the purpose of delivering the note.
Previous to presenting it, however, I thought it proper to ascertain
from Mr. Randoph himself, whether the information which Mr. Clay had
received, that he considered himself personally accountable for the
attack on him, was correct. I accordingly informed Mr. Randolph that
I was the bearer of a message from Mr. Clay, in consequence of an
attack which he had made upon his private as well as public character,
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 113
in the Senate; that I was aware no one had a right to question him
out of the Senate for anything said in debate, unless he chose volun-
tarily to waive his privileges as a member of that body. Mr. Randolph
replied, that the Constitution did protect him, but he would never shield
himself under such a subterfuge as the pleading of his privilege as a
Senator from Virginia; that he did holā himself accountable to Mr.
Clay; but he said that gentleman had first two pledges to redeem,--
one, that he had bound himself to fight any member of the House of
Representatives who should acknowledge himself the author of a cer-
tain publication in a Philadelphia paper; and the other, that he stood
pledged to establish certain facts in regard to a great man, whom he
would not name; but, he added, he could receive no verbal message
from Mr. Clay, -that any message from him must be in writing. I re-
plied, that I was not authorized by Mr. Clay to enter into, or receive,
any verbal explanations, – that the inquiries I had made for my own
satisfaction, and upon my own responsibility, -that the only message of
which I was the bearer was in writing. I then presented the note,
and remarked that I knew nothing of Mr. Clay's pledges; but that if
they existed as he (Mr. º understood them, and he was aware
of them when he made the attack complained of, he could not avail
himself of them,--that by making the attack, I thought he had waived
them himself. He said he had not the remotest intention of taking ad-
vantage of the pledges referred to, -that he had mentioned them
merely to remind me that he was waiving his privilege, not only as a
Senator from Virginia, but as a private gentleman, – that he was ready
to respond to Mr. Clay, and would be obliged to me if I would bear his
note in reply,– and that he would, in the course of the day, look out
for a friend. I declined being the bearer of his note, but informed him
my only reason for declining was, that I thought he owed to himself to
consult his friends before taking so important a step. He seized my
hand, saying, “You are right, sir. I thank you for the suggestion; but,
as you do not take my note, you must not be impatient if you should
not hear from me to-day. I now think of only two friends, and there
are circumstances connected with one of them which may deprive me of
his services, and the other is in bad health, –he was sick yesterday, and
may not be out to-day.”
“‘I assured him that any reasonable time which he might find neces-
sary to take, would be satisfactory. I took leave of him; and it is due
to his memory to say, that his bearing was, throughout the interview,
that of a high-toned, chivalrous gentleman of the old school.”
“These were the circumstances of the delivery of the challenge, and
the only thing necessary to give them their full character is to recollect
that, with this prompt acceptance and positive refusal to explain, and
this extra cut about the two pledges, there was a perfect determination
not to fire at Mr. Clay. That determination rested on two grounds:
first, an entire unwillingness to hurt Mr. Clay; and, next, a conviction
that to return the fire would be to answer, and would be an implied
acknowledgment of Mr. Cº.; right to make him answer. This he
10
I 14 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
* , ſº e
marriage connections.
would not do, either by implication or in words. He denied the
right of any person to question him out of the Senate for words spoken
within it. He took a distinction between man and Senator. As Sena-
tor he had a constitutional immunity, given for a wise purpose, and
which he would neither surrender nor compromise: as individual he
was ready to give satisfaction for what was deemed an injury. He
would receive, but not return, a fire. It was as much as to say, Mr.
-Clay may fire at me for what has offended him; I will not, by return-
ing the fire, admit his right to do so. This was a subtile distinction, and
that in a case of life and death, and not very clear to the common intel-
lect; but to Mr. Randolph both clear and convincing. His allusion to,
the “two pledges unredeemed, which he might have plead in bar to
Mr. Clay's challenge, and would not, was another sarcastic cut at Mr.
Adams and Mr. Clay, while rendering satisfaction for cuts already
given. The ‘member of the House’ was Mr. George Kremer, of Penn-
sylvania, who, at the time of the presidentinl election in the House of
Representatives, had avowed himself to be the author of an anonymous
publication, the writer of which Mr. Clay had threatened to call to
account if he would avow himself, - and did not. The “great man’
was President Adams, with whom Mr. Clay had had a newspaper con-
troversy, involving a question of fact, — which had been postponed.
The cause of this sarcastic cut, and of all the keen personality in the
Panama speech, was the belief that the President and Secretary, the
latter especially, encouraged the newspapers in their interest to attack
him, which they did incessantly; and he chose to overlook the editors
and retaliate upon the instigators, as he believed them to be. This he
did to his heart's content in that speech, – and to their great annoy-
ance, as the coming of the challenge proved. The “two friends’ alluded
to were Colonel Tatnall and myself, and the circumstances which
might disqualify one of the two were those of my relationship to Mrs.
Clay, of which he did not know the degree, whether of affinity or con-
sanguinity, - considering the first no obstacle, the other a complete bar
to my appearing as his second, – holding, as he did, with the tenacity
of an Indian, to the obligations of blood, and laying but little stress on
#. affable reception and courteous demeanor
to General Jesup were according to his high breeding, and the decorum
which belong to such occasions. A duel in the circle to which he belonged
was “an affair of honor’; and high honor, according to its code, must
eryade every part of it. General Jesup had come upon an unpleasant
usiness. Mr. Randolph determined to put him at his ease; and did it
so effectually as to charm him into admiration. The whole plan of his
conduct, down to contingent details, was cast in his mind instantly, as
if by intuition, and never departed from. The acceptance, the refusal
to explain, the determination not to fire, the first and second choice of
a friend, and the circumstances which might disqualify one and delay
the other, the additional cut, and the resolve to fall, if he fell, on the
soil of Virginia, was all, to his mind, a single emanation, — the flash
of an instant. He needed no consultations, no deliberations, to arrive
CHAI, LENGES AND DUELS. 115
at all these important conclusions. I dwell upon these small circum-
stances because they are characteristic, and show the man, – a man
who belongs to history, and had his own history, and should be known
as he was. That character can only be shown in his own conduct, —
his own words and acts: and this duel with Mr. Clay illustrates it at
many points. It is in that point of view that I dwell upon circum-
stances which might seem trivial, but which are not so, being illustrative
of character, and significant, to their smallest particulars.
“The acceptance of the challenge was in keeping with the whole
proceeding, — prompt in the agreement to meet, exact in protesting
against the right to call him out, clear in the waiver of his constitutional
privilege, brief and cogent in presenting the case as one of some repre-
hension, — the case of a member of an administration challenging a
Senator for words spoken in debate of that administration; and all in
brief, terse, and superlatively decorous language. It ran thus: ‘Mr.
Randolph accepts the challenge of Mr. Clay; at the same time, he pro-
tests against the right of any minister of the executive government of
the United States to hold him responsible for words spoken in debate,
as a Senator from Virginia, in crimination of such minister, or the ad-
ministration under which he shall have taken office. Colonel Tatnall,
of Georgia, the bearer of this letter, is authorized to arrange with Gen-
eral Jesup (the bearer of Mr. Clay's challenge) the terms of the meet-
ing to which Mr. Randolph is invited by that note.’
“This protest which Mr. Randolph entered against the right of Mr.
Clay to challenge him, led to an explanation between their mutual
friends on that delicate point, — a point which concerned the indepen-
dence of debate, the privileges of the Senate, the immunity of a mem-
ber, and the sanctity of the Constitution. It was a point which Mr.
Clay felt; and the explanation which was had between the mutual
friends presented an excuse, if not a justification, for his proceeding.
He had been informed that Mr. Randolph, in his speech, had avowed
his responsibility to Mr. Clay, and waived his privilege, – a thing which,
if it had been done, would have been a defiance, and stood for an invi-
tation to Mr. Clay to send a challenge. Mr. Randolph, through Colonel
Tatnall, disavowed that imputed avowal, and confined his waiver of
privilege to the time of the delivery of the challenge, and in answer to
an inquiry before it was delivered.
“The following are the communications between the respective sec-
onds on this point: –
“In regard to the protest with which Mr. Randolph's note concludes,
it is due to Mr. Clay to say that he had been informed Mr. Randolph
did, and would, hold himself responsible to him for any observations he
might make in relation to him; and that I (General Jesup) distinctly
understood from Mr. Randolph, before I delivered the note of Mr. Clay,
that he waived his privilege as a Senator.” -
“To this Colonel Tatnall replied:— .
“As this expression (did and would hold himself responsible, &c.)
may be construed to mean that Mr. Randolph, had given this intima-
sº

116 ‘CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
tion not only before called upon, but in such a manner as to throw out
to Mr. Clay something like an invitation to make such a call, I have, on
the part of Mr. Randolph, to disavow any disposition, when expressing
his readiness to waive his privilege as a Senator from Virginia, to invite,
in any case, a call upon him for personal satisfaction. The concluding
paragraph of your note, I presume, is intended to show merely that
you did not present a note, such as that of Mr. Clay to Mr. Randolph,
until you had ascertained his willingness to waive his privilege as a Sen-
ator. This I infer, as it was in your recollection, that the expression of
such a readiness, on the part of Mr. Randolph, was in reply to an in-
quiry on that point made by yourself.”
“Thus an irritating circumstance in the affair was virtually negatived,
and its offensive import wholly disavowed. For my part, I do not be-
lieve that Mr. Randolph used such language in his speech. I have no
recollection of having heard it. The published report of the speech, as
taken down by the reporters, and not revised by the speaker, contains
nothing of it. Such gasconade was foreign to Mr. Randolph's character.
The occasion was not one in which these sort of defiances are thrown
out, which are either to purchase a cheap reputation when it is known
they will be despised, or to get an advantage in extracting a challenge
when there is a design to kill. Mr. Randolph had none of these views
with respect to Mr. Clay. He had no desire to fight him, or to hurt
him, or gain cheap character by appearing to bully him. He was above
all that, and had settled accounts with him in his speech, and wanted no
more. I do not believe it was said. But there was a part of the speech
which might have received a wrong application, and led to the errone-
ous report, — a part which applied to a quoted passage in Mr. Adams's
Panama message, which he condemned and denounced, and dared the
President and his friends to defend. His words were, as reported un-
revised, “Here I plant my foot; here I fling defiance right into his (the
President's) teeth; here I throw the gauntlet to him, and the bravest of
his compeers, to come forward and defend these lines,’ &c. A very
palpable defiance this, but very different from a summons to personal
combat, and from what was related to Mr. Clay. It was an unfortunate
report, doubtless the effect of indistinct apprehension, and the more to
be regretted as, after having been a main cause in inducing the chal-
lenge, the disavowal could not stop it. -
“Thus the agreement for the meeting was absolute, and, according to
the expectation of the principals, the meeting itself would be immedi-
ately; but their seconds, from the most laudable feelings, determined to
delay it, with the hope to prevent it,- and did keep it off a week, ad-
mitting me to a participation in the good work, as being already privy
to the affair, and friendly to both parties. The challenge stated no
specific ground of offence,—specified no exceptionable words. It was
peremptory and general, for an “unprovoked attack on his (Mr. Clay's)
character,’ and it dispensed with explanations by alleging that the no-
toriety and indisputable existence of the injury Superseded the necessity
for them. Of course this demand was bottomed on a report of the
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 117
words spoken, – a verbal report, - the full daily publication of the
debates having not then began, – and was of a character greatly to ex-
asperate Mr. Clay. It stated that in the course of the debate Mr. Ran-
dolph said, ‘that a letter from General Salazar, the Mexican Minister
at Washington, submitted by the Executive to the Senate, bore the
ear-mark of having been manufactured or forged by the Secretary of
State, and denounced the administration as a corrupt coalition between
the puritan and blackleg; and added at the same time, that he (Mr.
Randolph) held himself personally responsible for all that he had said.’
This was the report to Mr. Clay, and upon which he gave the absolute
challenge, and received the absolute acceptance, which shut out all in-
quiry between the principals into the causes of the quarrel. The sec-
onds determined to open it, and to attempt an accommodation, or a
peaceable determination of the difficulty. In consequence, General Jes-
up stated the complaint in a note to Colonel Tatnall thus: ‘The injury
of which Mr. Clay complains consists in this: that Mr. Randolph has
charged him with having forged or manufactured a paper connected with
the Panama mission; also, that he has applied to him in debate the epi-
thet of blackleg. The explanation which I consider necessary is, that
Mr. Randolph declare that he had no intention of charging Mr. Clay,
either in his public or private capacity, with forging or falsifying any pa-
per, or misrepresenting any fact; and also, that the term blackleg was
not intended to apply to him.’ To this exposition of the grounds of com-
plaint, Colonel Tatnall answered: ‘Mr. Randolph informs me that the
words used by him in debate were as follows: “That I thought it would
be in my power to show evidence sufficiently presumptive to satisfy a
Charlotte (County) jury, that this invitation was manufactured here, —
that Salazar's letter struck me as bearing a strong likeness in point of
style to the other papers. I did not undertake to prove this, but ex-
pressed my suspicion that the fact was so. I applied to the administra-
tion the epithet, puritanic-diplomatic-blacklegged administration.” Mr.
Randolph, in giving these words as those uttered by him in debate, is
unwilling to afford any explanation as to their meaning and application.’
In this answer Mr. Randolph remained upon his original ground of
refusing to answer out of the Senate for words spoken within it. In
other respects the statement of the words actually spoken greatly ame-
liorated the offensive report, the coarse and insulting words ‘forging
and falsifying’ being disavowed, as in fact they were not used, and are
not to be found in the published report. The speech was a bitter philip-
ic, and intended to be so, taking for its point the alleged coalition
etween Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams with respect to the election, and
their efforts to get up a popular question contrary to our policy of non-
entanglement with foreign nations, in sending ministers to the Congress
of the American States of Spanish origin at the Isthmus of Panama.
I heard it all, and though sharp and cutting, I think it might have been
heard without any manifestation of resentment by Mr. Clay. The part
which he took so seriously to heart, that of having the Panama invita-
tions manufactured in his office, was to my mind nothing more than
/
118 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
attributing to him a diplomatic superiority, which enabled him to obtain
from the South American ministers the invitations that he wanted; and
not at all that they were spurious fabrications. As to the expression
‘blackleg and puritan,’ it was merely a sarcasm to strike by antithesis,
and which, being without foundation, might have been disregarded. I
#. these views to the parties, and if they had come from Mr.
andolph might have been sufficient; but he was inexorable, and
would not authorize a word to be said beyond what he had written.
“All hope of accommodation having vanished, the seconds proceeded
to arrange for the duel. The afternoon of Saturday, the 8th of April,
was fixed upon for the time, – the right bank of the Potomac, within the
State of Virginia, above the Little Falls bridge, was the place, — pis-
tols the weapons, distance ten paces, – each party to be attended by
two seconds and a surgeon, and myself at liberty to attend as a mutual
friend. There was to be no practising with pistols, and there was
none; and the words, “One, two, three, – stop, after the word ‘Fire,’
were, by agreement between the seconds, and for the humane purpose
of reducing the result as near as possible to chance, to be given out in
quick succession. The Virginia side of the Potomac was taken at the
instance of Mr. Randolph. He went out as a Virginia Senator, refusing
to compromise that character, and if he fell in defence of its rights,
Virginia soil was to him the chosen ground to receive his blood. There
was a statute of the State against duelling within her limits; but as he
merely went out to receive a fire without returning it, he deemed that
no fighting, and consequently no breach of her statute. This reason
for choosing Virginia could only be explained to me, as I alone was the
depositary of his secret. The week's delay which the seconds had con-
trived was about expiring. It was Friday evening, or rather night,
when I went to see Mr. Clay for the last time before the duel. There
had been some alienation between us since the time of the presidential
election in the House of Representatives, and I wished to give evidence
that there was nothing personal in it. The family were in the parlor, –
company present, — and some of it stayed late. The youngest child, I
believe James, went to sleep on the sofa, – a circumstance which availed
me for, a purpose the next day. Mrs. Clay was, as always since the
death of her daughters, the picture of desolation, but calm, conversible,
and without the slightest apparent consciousness of the impending
event. When all were gone, and she also had left the parlor, I did
what I came for, and said to Mr. Clay that, notwithstanding our late
political differences, my personal feelings towards him were the same as
formerly, and that, in whatever concerned his life or honor, my best
wishes were with him. He expressed his gratification at the visit and
the declaration, and said it was what he would have expected of me.
We parted at midnight. -
“Saturday, the 8th of April, - the day for the duel,- had come, and
almost the hour. It was noon, and ſhe meeting was to take place at
4; o'clock. I had gone to see Mr. Randolph before the hour, and for a
purpose; and, besides, it was so far on the way, as he lived half-way

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 119
to Georgetown, and we had to pass through that place to cross the Po-
tomac into Virginia at the Little Falls bridge. I had heard nothing
from him on the point of not returning the fire since the first commu-
nication to that effect, eight days before. I had no reason to doubt the
steadiness of his determination ; but felt a desire to have some fresh
assurance of it after so many days' delay, and so near approach of the
trying moment. I knew it would not do to ask him the question, —
any question which would imply a doubt of his word. His sensitive
feelings would be hurt and annoyed at it. So I fell upon a scheme to
get at the inquiry without seeming to make it. I told him of my visit
to Mrs. Clay the night before, — of the late sitting, — the child asleep, —
the unconscious tranquillity of Mrs. Clay; and added, I could not help
reflecting how different all that might be the next night. He under-
stood me perfectly, and immediately said, with a quietude of look and
expression which seemed to rebuke an unworthy doubt, “I shall do
nothing to disturb the sleep of the child or the repose of the mother,’ and
went on with his employment, — his seconds being engaged in their prep-
arations in a different room, - which was, making codicils to his will,
all in the way of remembrance to friends; the bequests slight in value,
but invaluable in tenderness of feeling and beauty of expression, and
always appropriate to the receiver. To Mr. Macon he gave some
English shillings, to keep the game when he played whist. His name-
sake, John Randolph Bryan, then at school in Baltimore, and since
married to his niece, was sent for to see him, but sent off before the
hour for going out, to save the boy from a possible shock at seeing him
brought back. He wanted some gold,—that coin not being then in
circulation, and only to be obtained by favor or purchase,_and sent his
faithful man, Johnny, to the United States Branch Bank to get a few
pieces, – American being the kind asked for. Johnny returned without
the gold, and delivered the excuse that the bank had none. Instantly
his clear silver-toned voice was heard above its natural pitch, exclaim-
ing: ‘Their name is legion 1 and they are liars from the beginning.
Johnny, bring me my horse.’ His own saddle-horse was brought him
—for he never rode Johnny's, nor Johnny his, though both, and all his
hundred horses, were of the finest English blood, - and rode off to the
bank down Pennsylvania Avenue, now Corcoran & Riggs's, – Johnny
following, as always, forty paces behind. , Arrived at the bank, this
scene, according to my informant, took place. Mr. Randolph asked
for the state of his account, was shown it, and found it to be some four
thousand dollars in his favor. He asked for it. The teller took up
packages of bills, and civilly asked in what sized notes he would have it.
*I want money,” said Mr. Randolph, putting emphasis on the word;
and at that time it required a bold man to intimate that United States
Bank notes were not money. The teller, beginning to understand him,
and willing to make sure, said, inquiringly: ‘You want silver ?’ ‘I
want my money!’ was the reply. Then the teller, lifting boxes to the
counter, said, politely, ‘Have you a cart, Mr. Randolph, to put it in?
‘That is my business, sir, said he. By that time the attention of the
120 CHALLENGES AND DUELS. #
cashier (Mr. Richard Smith) was attracted to what was going on, who
came up, and, understanding the question and its cause, told Mr. Randolph
there was a mistake in the answer given to his servant, that they had
gold, and he should have what he wanted. In fact, he had only applied
for a few pieces, which he wanted for a special purpose. This brought
about a compromise. The pieces of gold were received,—the cart and
the silver dispensed with ; but the account in the bank was closed, and
a check taken for the amount on New York. He returned, and deliv-
ered me a sealed paper, which I was to open if he was killed, - give
back to him if he was not; also an open slip, which I was to read be-
fore I got to the ground. This slip was a request to feel in his left
breeches pocket, if he was killed, and find so many pieces of gold,— I
believe nine,—take three for myself, and give the same number to
Tatnall and Hamilton each to make seals to wear in remembrance of
him. We were all three at Mr. Randolph's lodgings then, and soon sat
out, — Mr. Randolph and his seconds in a carriage, I following him on
horseback. •
“I have already said that the count was to be quick after giving the
word “Fire, and for a reason which could not be told to the principals.
To Mr. Randolph, who did not mean to fire, and who, though agreeing
to be shot at, had no desire to be hit, this rapidity of counting out the
time, and quick arrival at the command “Stop,' presented no objection.
With Mr. Clay it was different. With him it was all a real transaction,
and gave rise to some proposal for more deliberateness in counting off
the time; which being communicated to Colonel Tatnall, and by him
to Mr. Randolph, had an ill effect upon his feelings, and, aided by an
untoward accident on the ground, unsettled for a moment the noble de-
termination which he had formed not to fire at Mr. Clay. I now give
the words of General Jesup: “When Irepeated to Mr. Clay the “word”
in the manner in which it would be given, he expressed some appre-
hension that, as he was not accustomed to the use of the pistol, he might
not be able to fire within the time, and for that reason alone desired
that it might be prolonged. I mentioned to Colonel Tatnall the desire
of Mr. Clay. He replied, “If you insist upon it, the time must be
prolonged, but I should very much regret it.” I informed him I did
not insist upon prolonging the time, and I was sure Mr. Clay would ac-
quiesce. The original agreement was carried out.’
“I knew nothing of this until it was too late to speak with the seconds
or principals. I had crossed the Little Falls bridge just after them, and
come to the place where the servants and carriages had stopped. I saw
none of the gentlemen, and supposed they had all gone to the spot
where the ground was being marked off; but on speaking to Johnny,
Mr. Randolph, who was still in his carriage and heard my voice, looked
out from the window and said to me: “Colonel, since I saw you, and
since I have been in this carriage, I have heard something which may
make me change my determination. , Colonel Hamilton will give you
a note which will explain it.’ Colonel Hamilton was then in the car-
riage, and gave me the note, in the course of the evening, of which

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 121
Mr. Randolph spoke. I readily comprehended that this possible change
of determination related to his firing; but the emphasis with which he
pronounced the word “may, clearly showed that his mind was unde-
cided, and left it doubtful whether he would fire or not. No further
conversation took place between us; the preparations for the duel were
finished ; the parties went to their places; and I went forward to a
piece of rising ground, from which I could see what passed and hear
what was said. The faithful Johnny followed me close, speaking not a
word, but evincing the deepest anxiety for his beloved master. The
place was a thick forest, and the immediate spot a little depression, or
basin, in which the parties stood. The principals saluted each other
courteously as they took their stands. Colonel Tatnall had won the
choice of position, which gave to General Jesup the delivery of the
word. They stood on a line east and west, —a small stump just behind
Mr. Clay; a low gravelly bank rose just behind Mr. Randolph. This
latter asked General Jesup to repeat the word as he would give it;
and while in the act of doing so, and Mr. Randolph adjusting the but
of his pistol to his hand, the muzzle pointing downwards, and almost to
the ground, it fired. Instantly Mr. Randolph turned to Colonel Tatnall,
and said, ‘ I protested against that hair trigger.’ Colonel Tatnall took
blame to himself for having sprung the hair. Mr. Clay had not then
received his pistol. Mr. Johnson (Josiah), one of his seconds, was
carrying it to him, and still several steps from him. This untimely fire,
though clearly an accident, necessarily gave rise to some remarks, and
a species of inquiry, which was conducted with the utmost delicacy, but
which, in itself, was of a nature to be inexpressibly painful to a gentle-
man's feelings. Mr. Clay stopped it with the generous remark that the
fire was clearly an accident, and it was so unanimously declared. An-
other pistol was immediately furnished; an exchange of shots took place,
and, happily, without effect upon the persons. Mr. Randolph's bullet
struck the stump behind Mr. Clay, and Mr. Clay's knocked up the earth
and gravel behind Mr. Randolph, and in a line with the level of his
hips, both bullets having gone so true and close, that it was a marvel
how they missed. The moment had come for me to interpose. I went
in among the parties and offeréd my mediation, but nothing could be
done. Mr. Clay said, with that wave of the hand with which he was
accustomed to put away a trifle, “This is child's play !’ and required
another fire. Mr. Randolph also demanded another fire. The seconds
were directed to reload. While this was doing, I prevailed on Mr. Ran-
dolph to walk away from his post, and renewed to him, more pressingly
than ever, my importunities to yield to some accommodation; but I
found him more determined than I had ever seen him, and for the efirst
time impatient, and seemingly annoyed and dissatisfied, at what I was
doing. He was indeed annoyed and dissatisfied. The accidental fire
of his pistol preyed upon his feelings. He was doubly chagrined at it,
both as a circumstance susceptible in itself of an unfair interpretation,
and as having been the immediate and controlling cause of his firing at
Mr. Clay. He regretted this fire the instant it was over. He felt that
11
122 * CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
it had subjected him to imputations from which he knew himself to be
free, – a desire to kill Mr. Clay, and a contempt for the laws of his be-
loved State ; and the annoyances which he felt at these vexatious cir-
cumstances revived his original determination, and decided him irrevo-
cably to carry it out. *
“It was in this interval that he told me what he had heard since we
parted, and to which he alluded when he spoke to me from the window
of the carriage. It was to this effect: that he had been informed by
Colonel Tatnall, that it was proposed to give out the words with more
deliberateness, so as to prolong the time for taking aim. This informa-
tion grated harshly upon his feelings. It unsettled his purpose, and
brought his mind to the inquiry (as he now told me, and as I found it
expressed in the note which he had immediately written in pencil to
apprise me of his possible change) whether, under these circumstances,
he might not “disable’ his adversary. This note is so characteristic,
and such an essential part of this affair, that I here give its very words,
so far as it relates to this point. It ran thus : —
“‘Information received from Colonel Tatnall since I got into the
carriage may induce me to change my mind of not returning Mr.
Clay's fire. I seek not his death. I would not have his blood upon
my hands—it will not be upon my soul if shed in self-defence — for
the world. He has determined, by the use of a long, preparatory cau-
tion by words, to get time to kill me. May I not, then, disable him?
Yes, if I please.’ *
“It has been seen by the statement of General Jesup, already given,
that this ‘information’ was a misapprehension; that Mr. Clay had not
applied for a prolongation of time for the purpose of getting sure aim,
but only to enable his unused hand, long unfamiliar with the pistol, to
fire within the limited time; that there was no prolongation, in fact,
either granted or insisted upon ; but he was in doubt, and General Jes-
up having won the word, he was having him repeat it in the way he
was to give it out, when his finger touched the hair-trigger. How un-
fortunate that I did not know of this in time to speak to General Jes-
ilp, when one word from him would have set all right, and saved the
imminent risks incurred. This inquiry, “May I not disable him º' was
still on Mr. Randolph's mind, and dependent for its solution on the ris-
ing incidents of the moment, when the accidental fire of his pistol gave
-the turn to his feelings which solved the doubt. But he declared to me
that he had not aimed at the life of Mr. Clay; that he did not level as
high as the knee, – not higher than the knee-band, “for it was no mercy
to shoot a man in the knee’; that his only object was to disable him,
and spoil his aim. And then added, with a beauty of expression and a
depth of feeling which no studied oratory can ever attain, and which I
shall never forget, these impressive words: ‘I would not have seen him
fall mortally, or even doubfully, wounded, for all the land that is watered
by the King of Floods and all his tributary streams.” He left me to re-
sume his post, utterly refusing to explain out of the Senate anything
that he had said in it, and with the positive declaration that he would
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 123
.
not return the next fire. I withdrew a little way into the woods, and
kept my eyes fixed upon Mr. Randolph, who I then knew to be the only
one in danger. I saw him receive the fire of Mr. Clay, saw the gravel
knocked up in the same place, saw Mr. Randolph raise his pistol, - dis-
charge it into the air, – heard him say, ‘I do not fire at you, Mr.
Clay,'—and immediately advancing, and offering his hand. He was
met in the same spirit. They met half-way, shook hands, Mr. Randolph
saying jocosely, ‘You owe me a coat, Mr. Clay,'— (the bullet had passed
through the skirt of the coat, very near the hip,) — to which Mr. Clay
promptly and happily replied, ‘ I am glad the debt is no greater.' I had
come up, and was prompt to proclaim what I had been obliged to keep
secret for eight days. The joy of all was extreme at this happy termi-
nation of a most critical affair, and we immediately left, with lighter
hearts than we brought. I stopped to sup with Mr. Randolph and his
friends, – none of us wanted dinner that day, - and had a character-
istic time of it. A runner came in from the bank, to say that they had
overpaid him, by mistake, $130 that day. He answered, ‘I believe
it is your rule not to correct mistakes, except at the time, and at your coun-
ter.’ And with that answer the runner had to return. When gone,
Mr. Randolph said, ‘I will pay it on Monday; people must be honest,
if banks are not.’ He asked for the sealed paper he had given me,
opened it, took out a check for $ 1,000, drawn in my favor, and with
which I was requested to have him carried, if killed, to Virginia, and
buried under his patrimonial oaks, – not let him be buried at Washing-
ton, with an hundred hacks after him. He took the gold from his left
breeches pocket, and said to us, (Hamilton, Tatnall, and I.) Gentle-
men, Clay's bad shooting sha’n’t rob you of your seals. I am going to
London, and will have them made for you,”— which he did, and most
characteristically, so far as mine was concerned. He went to the her-
ald's office in London, and inquired for the Benton family, of which I
had often told him there was none, as we only dated on that side from
my grandfather in North Carolina. But the name was found, and with
it a coat of arms, – among the quarterings a lion rampant. This is the
family, said he , and had the arms engraved on the seal, the same which
I have since habitually worn ; and added the motto, Factis non verbis,
of which he was afterwards accustomed to say, the non should be
changed into et. But, enough. I run into these details, not merely to
relate an event, but to show character; and if I have not done it, it is
not for want of material, but of ability to use it. -
“On Monday the parties exchanged cards, and social relations were
formally and courteously restored. It was about the first high-toned
duel that I have witnessed, and among the highest-toned that I have
ever witnessed, and so happily conducted to a fortunate issue, a result
due to the noble character of the seconds, as well as to the generous
and heroic spirit of the principals. Certainly, duelling is bad, and has
been put down, but not quite so bad as its substitute, – revolvers,
bowie-knives, blackguarding, and street-assassinations under the pre-
text of self-defence.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
124 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
CLERMonT, LOUIs DE, and ST. PHAL. In France, in the latter
part of the sixteenth century. Clermont was a French noble,
sometimes called Bussy d'Amboise. An assassin, a libertine,
and a professed duellist, he was one of the worst men of his
time. His affair with St. Phal shows how wantonly he provoked
a quarrel. That gentleman, looking at some embroidery, re-
marked that the letter X was worked on it. Clermont, insolently,
and purely from a spirit of contradiction, asserted that the letter
was Y. A duel of six against six was the consequence. Cler-
mont was slightly wounded ; but, dissatisfied with the result, he
challenged St. Phal a second time, which caused the King to in-
terfere, and put an end to the dispute. For his many offences
Clermont was consigned to the Bastile. Released by the inter-
ference of persons of influence at court, he was soon after slain
by a nobleman whose wife he had seduced, when expecting to
meet the lady, in accordance with an appointment made on
compulsion by the injured husband.
CLINToN, DE WITT, and JoHN SwARTwoUT. Near the city
of New York, in 1802. The dispute was political: Hamilton
was involved, and, two years later, became a victim. A cor-
respondence preceded the meeting between Clinton and his oppo-
ment, in which concessions were demanded and evaded. On the
ground, Clinton is said to have expressed the wish (referring to
Burr), that he “had the principal there.”
The seconds were R. Riker and W. S. Smith. The state-
ment of the latter follows. It will be seen that the parties ea:-
changed five shots. *
“The ground being correctly measured, and intermediate questions
adjusted, the gentlemen took their stations, – were each presented
with a pistol, and, by order, faced to the right, and fired, ineffectually.
At the request of Mr. Riker; I asked Mr. Śwartwout, "Are you satis-
fied, sir?” He answered, ‘I am not.’ The pistols then being exchanged,
and their positions resumed, by order, the gentlemen faced to the right,
and fired a second shot, without effect. At the request of Mr. Riker,
I again addressed Mr. Swartwout, “Are you satisfied, sir?' He answer-
ing strongly in the negative, we proceeded, and a third shot was ex-
changed without injury. At the request of Mr. Riker, I again asked Mr.
Swartwout, “Are you satisfied, sir?' He answered, ‘I am not, — neither
shall I be, until that apology is made which I have demanded. Until
then, we must proceed.’ I then presented a paper to Mr. Riker, con-
taining the apology demanded, for Mr. Clinton's signature, observing,
that we could not spend our time in conversation; that this paper must
be signed or proceed. Mr. Clinton declared he would not sign any
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 125
paper on the subject, — that he had no animosity against Mr. Swart.
wout, — would willingly shake hands and agree to meet on the score of
former friendship.
“Mr. Swartwout insisting on his signature to the apology, and Mr.
Clinton declining, they stood at their posts and fired a fourth shot. Mr.
Clinton's ball struck Mr. Swartwout's left leg, about five inches below
the knee;—he stood ready and collected. At the request of Mr.
Riker, I again addressed Mr. Swartwout, “Are you satisfied, sir?' He
answered, that “It was useless to repeat the question, — my determi-
nation is fixed, – and I beg we may proceed.’ Mr. Clinton repeated
that he had no animosity against Mr. Swartwout, — was sorry for what
had passed, -proposed to advance, shake hands, and bury the circum-
stance in oblivion. During this conversation, Mr. Swartwout's surgeon,
kneeling by his side, extracted the ball from the opposite side of his
leg, Mr. Swartwout standing erect on his post, and positively declining
anything short of an ample apology, they fired the fifth shot, and Mr.
Swartwout received the ball in the left leg, about five inches above the
ancle; still, however, standing steadily on his post, perfectly composed.
At the request of Mr. Riker, I again addressed Mr. Swartwout, “Are
you satisfied, sir?' He forcibly answered, ‘I am not, sir; proceed.’
Mr. Clinton then quit his station, declined the combat, and declared he
would fire no more. Mr. Swartwout expressed himself surprised, that
Mr. Clinton would neither apologize nor give him the satisfaction re-
quired; and addressing me, said, ‘What shall I do, my friend ?' I
answered, ‘Mr. Clinton declines making the apology required, – refuses
taking his position, — and positively declares he will º no more ;
and his second appearing to acquiesce in the disposition of his principal,
there is nothing further left for you now, but to have your wounds
dressed.’ The surgeons attended, dressed Mr. Swartwout's wounds,
and the gentlemen, in their respective barges, returned to the city.”
Mr. Clinton was challenged the year following, for words spoken
in the Senate of the United States. (See Jonathan Dayton.)
CLONMELL, LORD, and LoRD TYRAwLY. Thé family name
of the first, Scott; of the latter, Cuffe. The case is related by
Barrington, and is a curious one. It seems that Lady Tyrawly
had an utter aversion to her husband; and as a means to procure
a divorce from him, confessed to him in tears, and upon her
knees, that she was an adulteress. His lordship ordered her out
of the house, and to priváte lodgings. He next summoned a
friend, and informed him that his wife had confessed that “the
villain Scott,” the Attorney-General and pretended friend of the
family, was her seducer. The Attorney-General was accord-
ingly challenged. That gentleman, believing that a declaration
of innocence on his part would be regarded only as an honor-
able perjury, to save i. ladyship's reputation, and to screen
1
*
126 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
himself from her husband's vengeance, determined to meet his
lordship. They exchanged shots. Mr. Scott then told his antag-
onist, that he never had the slighest familiarity with her ladyship,
upon his honor; and here the affair terminated. It may be add-
ed, that her ladyship secured a separate maintenance by her trick.
CoBDEN, RICHARD, Member of Parliament. See Hastings,
Admiral Sir Thomas.
CoCHRAN, , and Joseph BAINBRIDGE. At Malta, in 1803.
Cochran, an Englishman, and secretary of Sir Alexander Ball,
Governor of Malta ; Bainbridge, a midshipman in the navy of
the United States, and attached to the frigate New York.
The papers of Commodore Preble, in my possession, afford
ample evidence, that at this period our navy and its officers were
held in utter contempt. His flag-ship (the frigate Constitution)
was called, in derision, “a bunch of pine boards,” and the
gentlemen who were in service in the Mediterranean during the
war with Tripoli were often treated with indignity. This was
especially the case when the American squadrons under the
command of Commodores Dale and Morris were in that sea.
While Morris was there, the New York, one of his ships, put
into Malta. Bainbridge and a brother officer went on shore.
At the theatre they met Cochran and other British officers, who
reflected upon the valor of their countrymen, and followed them
into the lobby. In pacing the lobby, Cochran,—the principal ag-
gressor in words previously, - ran against Bainbridge three sev-
eral times. Upon the last collision Bainbridge knocked him down.
A challenge from Cochran was the result. Lieutenant Stephen
Decatur arranged the terms of meeting. Bainbridge was not prac-
tised with the pistol at any distance ; but Cochran was sure at
ten paces. Decatur, as a device to save his friend’s life, proposed
four paces, to which Cochran's friend objected. Decatur insisted,
and prevailed. The parties exchanged shots without effect. At
the second fire Cochran was mortally wounded in the head.
Sir Alexander Ball demanded the surrender of the two Ameri-
can officers for trial ; and the British government took notice of
the affair in a communication to our Minister in London. The
successor of Cochran, as secretary of Sir Alexander, was the
celebrated Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who had been employed as
an editor of a London newspaper, the Morning Post.
Coch-E, SAMUEL B., and MR. GIBSON. Near Washington, in
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 127
3.
1822. The former, a midshipman in the navy; the latter, a
clerk in the Treasury Department. Cocke shot through the lungs;
Gibson not hurt.
CoFFIN, JOHN. Two affairs. The first, in 1783, at New
York. Duel with Colonel Campbell, in which Coffin was wound-
ed in the groin ; both were officers in the British service, in the
war of the Revolution.
Coffin was a native of Boston, a “Loyalist,” a brother of Ad-
miral Sir Isaac Coffin, and became a general. At the peace, he
retired to the British possessions, and finally settled in the Prov-
ince of New Brunswick. In 1818, he became involved in
several controversies with gentlemen of consideration in that
Province, and especially with the officers of His Majesty’s cus-
toms. The cartel which follows was addressed to the Honorable
Robert Parker the Comptroller of the Revenue for New Bruns-
wick. Eastport, Maine, designated as the place of meeting, is
still called by its ancient name, “Moose Island,” by British
colonists generally.
“SIR,--I have the honor to communicate the following note re-
ceived from your son Nevil, last Sunday morning. I am not in the
habit of entertaining young gentlemen at this inconvenient place. But,
sir, harboring no vindictive resentment against you, and our ages being
more equal, if you will attend me upon a party of pleasure to Moose
Island, I shall be very happy to entertain you. I regret very much
that I cannot offer you a passage in the schooner Martin, as she is at
present out of commission." •
“I have the honor to be, sir, with the utmost consideration, your most
obedient humble servant, JOHN COFFIN.”
CoHN, or CoIIEN, and DR. WINTZEL. In Louisiana, 1853.
The former, editor of the Staats Zeitung ; the latter, editor of
the Deutsche Zeitung. Combat on Sunday. The New Orleans
Courier says: —
“The conditions were, that one of them should first fire at fifteen
paces, and, having advanced ten, should receive his adversary's fire at
five paces. By the trial shot, the first fire was allotted to Mr. Cohn.
He fired accordingly, but missed, and advanced ten paces. Dr. Wint-
zel raised his pistol, but lowered it again. The hope thus raised that
he did not intend to fire was disappointed; for he presently raised his
pistol again, fired, and struck Mr. Cohn on the right side below the
ribs. At first the wound was pronounced mortal; but we learn that
Mr Cohn might recover. The ball has not been extracted.”
Another account of the affair is, that
128 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
“The parties fought with pistols, at fifteen paces' distance. It is re-
ported that Mr. Cohen fired first, — his antagonist reserving his fire, —
and that then Mr. Cohen advanced ten steps and received the fire of the
opposing party at five paces’ distance. Rumor has it that the ball took
effect about the middle of Cohen's body, inflicting a wound that is pro-
nounced mortal.”
CokER, Joseph B. See Stewart, Claudius C.
, CoLBEE, a corporal in the army of the Revolution. In 1779,
while stationed at the Highlands, New York. Challenge to
Sergeant Powers. The Corporal was tried by a court-martial,
and sentenced to be reduced to the ranks.
CoLCLough, and ALcock. In Ireland, year 1808. This is
one of the saddest tales in the annals of duelling. The parties
were rival candidates for a seat in Parliament, for the county of
Wexford, Ireland. The causes were political. Tenants of
“forty shillings a year” were voters. Alcock had obtained the
favor of a lady who owned an estate in the county, and his
friends counted upon the votes of her tenants; but the tenants
preferred Colclough, and tendered their votes to him accordingly.
This was resented, and Colclough was required to refuse their
suffrages. He declined, stating, that he had not solicited their
votes, and could not interfere to prevent them from doing as
they pleased. It was then said to him, “Receive their votes
at your peril 1” -
Before the opening of the poll, the following day, the two
gentlemen met. Hundreds of people were present; and among
them, twelve county magistrates, and many of the tenants who
had occasioned the combat. Colclough was shot through the
heart at the first fire, and fell dead. In a few hours, Alcock was
returned duly elected. He was tried at Wexford, on an indict-
ment for murder, and acquitted. It appeared in evidence, that
before delivering his fire he put on spectacles, which, it was
proved, he did not always wear.
The most distressing part of the affair remains to be told.
The combatants had been warm friends. The recollections of
the duel, and of the trial which followed it, were fatal to the sur-
vivor. He became melancholy ; his reason wandered ; and he
died, a mental and physical wreck, in a madhouse. His sister,
too, an intimate friend of Colclough, “doubly wounded,” did
not long survive. Lovely and sensitive, the horrible transaction
was ever present to her imagination. After her brother's death,
she wasted away in hopeless insanity. | -
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 129
CoLEMAN, WILLIAM, editor of New York Evening Post. See
Cheetham, James, and also Thompson, Captain.
CoLEs, GEORGE. See Palmer,
CoLLETT, Joshua W. In Mexico, 1848. He was a captain
in the army of the United States, and was slain. Antagonist
unknown. 2 *.
CoLLINs, , ex-Sheriff. See Winters, Charles.
CoLT, SIR HENRY DUTToN. See Fielding,
CoLTER, JoHN. See Nugent, John.
CoNCHA, J. DE LA, General. See Soule, Neville.
CoNDE, Prince of. See Turemme, Wiscount.
CoNDE, the Prince of, and the Count Agou LT. In France,
previous to 1789. The Prince was wounded. Napoleon's vic-
tim, the Duc d'Enghien, was his grandson. Conde died at
Paris, in 1818.
CoNNECTICUT, Constitutional provision : —
“The privileges of an elector shall be forfeited by a conviction of
bribery, forgery, perjury, duelling, fraudulent bankruptcy, theft, or
other offence, for which an infamous punishment is inflicted.”
CoNNER, CoNSTANT. A Loyalist, or Tory, in the Revolution,
and an officer in the corps called the “Royal Fensible Ameri-
cans.” He went to Nova Scotia at the peace of 1783, where, in
a duel, he slew his adversary. Conner died at Halifax.
See Geoffrey of Lusignan.
CoNSTABLE, PHILIP, and EDwARD PERCY. In England, in
1618. Constable was killed; he was of Wassand, county of
York.
CoNVERSANo, Count of, and the Duke of MARTINA. In 1664.
Both nobles of Naples. The Duke was a mere youth; and ap-
peared as the champion of his uncle, the Prince of Francavilla,
who was an old man, as was also the Count of Conversano.
These two aged noblemen had hated each other for a long time,
and for various causes. The Count met his enemy in the public
street, and leaning over his carriage struck him repeatedly with
the flat side of his sword. This was the immediate cause of the
duel.
CoNRAD,
130 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
The Count consented that the young Duke might be the sub-
stitute for his uncle ; and agreed, moreover, to a year's delay,
in order that the Duke might “finish his education,” or, more
probably, perfect himself in the art of fencing.
The Duke prepared himself for the combat by making his
will, by confession according to the rites of the Church, and by
taking affectionate leave of his mother. The Count, on the con-
trary, ordered a sumptuous feast to be prepared, and invited his
friends and retainers to partake of it after the duel. They met,
and the Count was slain.
CoNWAY, THoMAs, Knight of the Order of St. Louis, and JoHN
CADwALADER, of Pennsylvania. In 1778. Both were general
officers in the army of the Revolution.
The commonly received, and probably the true opinion, is,
that Conway's enmity to Washington, and his participation in
the intrigue to displace the Commander-in-chief, and to elevate
Gates, was the cause of the meeting between these two gentle-
men. Graydon, in his Memoirs, while he refers especially to this
intrigue, inclines to consider that the immediate origin of the
duel was the opposition of Cadwalader to Conway's application
to Congress for the commission of a major-general, on account
of misconduct at Germantown.
Conway was dangerously wounded. His adversary’s bullet
entered his mouth, and he fell directly on his face. He thought
his injury mortal; and atoned to Washington in the following
terms : —
“Philadelphia, February 23d, 1778. .
“SIR,--I find myself just able to hold my pen during a few minutes,
and take this opportunity of expressing my sincere grief, for having
done, written, or said anything disagreeable to your Excellency. My
career will soon be over, therefore justice and truth prompt me to de-
clare my last sentiments. You are, in my eyes, the great and good
man. May you long enjoy the love, esteem, and veneration of these
States, whose liberties you have asserted by your virtues.
“I am, &c.," THOMAS CONWAY.”
CoNWAY, General, and Robert CRITTENDEN. In 1830, or
a year or two earlier, in Arkansas. Supposed the first party
or political duel in that State. Several gentlemen who subse-
quently became distinguished in the national councils were in-
volved in the affair. Crittenden's friend on the ground was
“Ben Desha,” a son of a governor of Kentucky; the second of
Conway, Colonel Wharton Rector. .
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 131
I give the material circumstances from an article which ap-
peared, some years ago, in Noah's Weekly Messenger, presumed
from the pen of the editor : —
“In 1830, Crittenden and Conway began to canvass the Territory as
opponents for the office of Delegate to the Supreme Congress of the na-
tion, the former being a Whig, and the latter a Democrat. The field was
altogether new ; parties had not yet been organized, and all was in a
state of transition, — agitated, stormy, and doubtful. The magnificence
of the prize for which they struggled stimulated the rivals to the highest
degree of enthusiasm, until the strife became maddening, and burst
over all the boundaries of decent language, and even common courtesy.
It was generally believed, that whatsoever party acquired the ascendency
now would be enabled to keep it a long while, perhaps for ever. Un-
der such circumstances, the excitement of the people and their leaders
may be imagined.
“For a time the opposing candidates pursued different circuits, one
sweeping the stumps of the north, and the other those of the south.
They were probably induced to take this course in the first instance
from the same motive, – a desire to avoid a personal collision; for they
seem all along to have dreaded such a termination. The sovereign
voters were dissatisfied with this distant cannonade. They loudly de-
manded that the champions should be brought to close quarters, so as to
afford an opportunity of deciding their respective merits with the senses
and by immediate contrast. Hence the political chieftains were forced
to submit, and the primary “pitched battle’ was appointed to come off at
Little Rock, in midsummer.
“On the day designated, an immense concourse assembled to witness
the trial of strength. Intense was the ferment of passionate feeling.
Many spectators were even known to have travelled four hundred
miles to be present on the occasion. The hunters and herdsmen who
were too poor to pay the expense of board and lodgings at the hotels,
‘camped out’ in the woods around the town. Early in the morning it
was discovered that no house could be procured large enough to hold a
tithe of the people already arrived, and accordingly the place of meeting
was changed from the city hall to a beautiful grove of pines in the
yicinity, which, before the sun had performed three hours' space of his
long summer journey, was densely crowded by the eager masses, – the
true rulers, whose sceptre lay in the ballot-box.” t
An earnest discussion ensued, which at last became personal.
At the close of Crittenden's second speech, he said that he
“trusted no gentleman would utter words, in the heat of debate,
towards him, such as could not be tolerated by the code of
honor.” Conway bounded to his feet, and poured forth a torrent
of bitter invective, and burning denunciation.
“Crittenden rejoined with but a single sentence:– “Your language,
General Conway, admits of only one answer, and that, you may be sure,
132 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
I will make right speedily.” He then descended from the platform, and,
attended by a few select friends, hurried away to his hotel. His sec-
ond waited on Conway the same evening, and a hostile meeting was
arranged for the following morning.
“A vast throng collected at the time and place appointed, to witness
the duel. As soon as the parties appeared on the ground, they began
to make their arrangements, and serious difficulties arose between the
seconds on various points of order. While the dispute as to these was
pending for almost an hour, Conway became restless, angry, and agi-
tated, while Crittenden, trusting all to his friend, lay quiet on a blanket,
with his eyes shut, as if enjoying a comfortable slumber. Finally every-
thing was settled, and the principals took their positions, with their pis-
tols cocked, and their fingers on the triggers. -
“While the two antagonists were thus standing in position, the spec-
tators at a glance contrasted their aspect and bearing. Crittenden in-
herited the noblest of human forms, with fair hair, blue eyes, and a lofty
countenance, frank and open in its expression, and wearing the seal of
death-defying bravery. He stood calm, collected, and unconcerned,
like a rifleman about to fire at a mark. But Conway had a stern face,
eyes dark as night, and his look of indubitable courage was perceptibly
tinged with revenge. At length Desha gave the word, in a voice that
rung afar over the hills like the peal of a trumpet: ‘Fire! . One !—
two 1—three l’. At the sound ‘Fire, Conway instantly raised his weap-
on and pulled the trigger. His bullet grazed the other's breast, and cut
a button off his coat, without more injury. But Crittenden waited till
the last echo of the word ‘two, and then his pistol exploded. With
the roar, General Conway dropped to the earth like lead. The ball
had pierced through his heart.”
The survivor died of a fever a few years afterwards. He was,
I suppose, a brother of the Hon. John J. Crittenden, the distin
guished statesman of Kentucky. -
Cook, ZEBEDEE, JUN. See Barrell, George.
Cooper, F. A., and — WooD. In England, in the year
1825. A pugilistic encounter. The parties were Eton scholars
of high rank: Cooper, a son of the Earl of Shaftesbury; Wood,
a nephew of the Marquis of Londonderry. Between the rounds,
their schoolfellows plied them with brandy. The youth of the
noble house of Shaftesbury was killed. The second of his an-
tagonist was a Wellesley. . f -
Such a combat, on the borders of civilization in 'America,
stimulated by whiskey from the hands of rough backwoodsmen,
would be cited by some who visit us as an incident to show the
state of American manners and morals. -
Coote, Captain, and the Earl of WARwick. In England,
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 133
probably in 1699. The duel, three on a side, and in the dark.
Some or all of the parties were half drunk. Coote was killed.
The Earl of Warwick and Lord Mohun were tried for murder,
but acquitted.
CoPELAND, SIR John. See Lorres, Sir Lancelot de.
CoRRY, See Grattan, Henry.
CoRTEs, HERNANDo. In the words of the classic author of
the Conquest of Mewico, - -
“Cortes was a knight errant, in the literal sense of the word. Of all
the band of adventurous cavaliers whom Spain, in the sixteenth cen-
tury, sent forth on the career of discovery and conquest, there was
none more deeply filled with the spirit of romantic enterprise.”
Again remarks Prescott: —
“His graver pursuits . . . . . did not prevent his indulgence of the
amatory propensities, which belong to the sunny clime where he was
born; and this frequently involved him in affairs of honor, from which,
though an expert swordsman, he carried away scars that accompanied
him to his grave.” -
CoTTINEAU, Captain, in the navy of the United States. See
Landais, Pierre.
CourCEY, H. D.E. See Carter, W. H.
Cour.NET and BARTHELMy. In England, in 1852, near Wind-
sor. The parties were Frenchmen. Cournet belonged to one
of the first families in France, was a distinguished officer in the
navy, and among its official representatives at the coronation of
Queen Victoria. It is said that he had been the victor in four-
teen duels. In this he was slain.
The difficulty which led to the meeting is understood to be
this. Cournet went over to England, in 1851, on a visit, and
was intrusted with a package for Barthelmy, who was already
there, a political exile. Cournet had never seen him, and, hear-
ing that his character was bad, determined not to deliver the
parcel in person, and to avoid making his acquaintance. On his
return to Paris, he stated these facts to the person who had in-
trusted him with the package. The circumstance became known
to Barthelmy, who sent Cournet a challenge, which seems to
have been accepted; but, for some reason or other, a meeting
was prevented.
The following year, Cournet, in turn, proscribed by the French
government, came to Bºnd a second time. The quarrel was
2
\.
134 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
there renewed; but by the mediation of friends, adjusted. Cour-
net, however, feeling that he had consented to an arrangement
… under a menace, immediately addressed Barthelmy a letter,
which placed the matter upon its original ground. The terms
of a duel, after some negotiation as to weapons, &c., were then
settled ; the parties to commence with pistols, forty paces apart,
to advance ten paces before the first shot, (if they chose,) — to
fire twice, and then, pistols proving ineffectual, to use swords
to end the affair, – the choice of position and of pistols, and
the signal for firing, to be determined by “tossing up.”
“With this understanding the fatal rencontre took place. Cournet
had the choice of position and of pistols, and his seconds also were to
give the signal; so that the luck seemed to run in his favor. He ad-
vanced his ten paces and fired, but, though on fourteen similar occasions
he had never failed to hit his opponent, this time he missed. Barthelmy
then told him that he had his life in his hands, but would surrender his
right to fire if Cournet would agree to terminate the duel with swords.
Cournet declined to do so, saying that he would stand his adversary's
fire, and take his second shot. Barthelmy then levelled his pistol, but
it snapped. He put a fresh cap on it and it snapped a second time;
and it was then agreed that he should use Cournet's pistol, which was
loaded and handed to him. Before discharging it, however, he again
offered ineffectually to terminate the contest with swords. He then
fired, and with fatal precision.”
Three friends of the combatants, Mons. Mourney, Baronnet,
and Allain, were arrested, examined, and committed,— the
magistrates refusing bail. A number of French gentlemen were
present at the examination, and among them M. Louis Blanc.
The accused were asked, before being remanded, in the usual
form, whether they had anything to say ; when two of them put
in the following statement:- *
“Whatever may be the consequences of the severity of the English
law against duelling, (of which I am informed,) I declare that I was the
second of M. Cournet on the 19th of October; that the obligations and
sincere friendship I entertained for him would not allow of my refusing
to accompany him in this fatal rencontre. He was my best friend,
and I had found so many noble qualities in him, that I did all I could
to avoid the rencontre, but I had to obey the laws of honor, friendship,
and the customs of French-duelling. Were I to pass the remainder of
my life in prison, I would never disclose the name of the person who
was the adversary of M. Cournet, now that I know the English law.
Honor forbids my mentioning the name of an antagonist, if he will not,
or cannot do so. I am a prisoner, but will never quit a prison by a
declaration which is repugnant to my character and my habits.
* (Signed,) BARONNET.”
CHAL LENGES AND DUELS. 135
^
“I adhere to this declaration: it is quite in conformity with my own
sentiments. (Signed,) ALLAIN.”
An English newspaper, in an account of the proceedings of
the coroner's inquest on the body of M. Cournet, remarks, that
the fact came out in evidence, that one of the pistols which were
used in this duel, on being returned to the establishment where
they were hired, was loaded; and that, on drawing the charge, a
linen rag was found, carefully folded up, in a position which ren-
dered the discharge of the weapon impossible. This, of course,
was Barthelmy’s pistol, which missed fire twice.
CRANE, ALFRED, and EDwARD TOBEy. In California, in 1853,
with navy pistols, at ten paces. Crane, who was the challenged
party, was a physician, and formerly of Louisiana; Tobey, clerk
of the assistant aldermen of San Francisco. Crane was shot
through the body, and died the morning after the duel.
CRAwFoRD, Colonel. See Townshend, George.
CREAT, See Cearmach, Connal.
CRITTENDEN, A. P. See Gwin, William M.
CRITTENDEN, JoHN J., Senator in Congress from Kentucky.
See Cilley, Jonathan.
CRITTENDEN, RobERT. See Conway, General.
CROFIELD, SIR EDwARD, Baronet. See French, George.
CRosBy,
See Barrington, Sir Jonah.
CUMMING, Colonel. See McDuffie, George.
CUMMINGs, See Bouligny, Henry.
CURIATII. See Horatii.
CURRAN, JoHN PHILPoT. The hero, certainly, of four duels.
I am unable to notice them in chronological order. That with
St. Ledger, an officer, was in the outset of Curran's professional
career. St. Ledger had assaulted a Roman Catholic clergyman,
and Curran was employed on the side of the prosecution. He
took occasion to speak of St. Ledger in terms of great bitterness.
St. Ledger gave him a challenge the next day. They met, and,
Curran not returning his fire, the affair was concluded. “It was
not necessary,” said Curran, “for me to fire at him; he died in
three weeks after the duel, of the report of his own pistol.”
That with John Fitzgibbon (who was afterwards Lord Clare,
\
136 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
and Lord High Chancellor of Ireland) occurred in 1785. Dur-
ing the distracted condition of the Emerald Isle, Curran often
defended persons accused of political offences. Fitzgibbon, then
Attorney-General, was, of course, his opponent. In the per-
formance of their professional duty, they came, gradually, to
indulge in feelings of personal rancor. At last, in a discussion
in Parliament upon “Orde's Propositions,” the Attorney-General
remarked that “Ireland was a nation easily roused, and easily
appeased.” Curran replied in a tone of great severity. Fitz-
gibbon sent him a message. On the ground, the parties were to
fire at pleasure. “I never,” said Mr. Curran, when relating the
circumstances of that meeting, “I never saw any one whose de-
termination seemed more malignant than Fitzgibbon. After I
had fired, he took aim at me nearly half a minute; and, on its
proving ineffectual, I could not help exclaiming, “It was not
your fault, Mr. Attorney; you were deliberate enough.’”
Another combat was with John Egan, an Irish barrister.
Egan had the nickname of “Bully.” He was of immense size,
“as brawny and almost as black as a coal-porter.”
“During the temporary separation of Lord Avonmore and
Curran, Egan, either wishing to pay his court to the Chief Baron,
or really supposing that Curran meant to be offensive, espoused
the judge's imaginary quarrel so bitterly, that a duel between
the barristers was the consequence.”
On the ground, Egan complained that the disparity in their
sizes gave his antagonist a manifest advantage. “I might as
well fire at a razor's edge as at him,” said Egan, “and he may
hit me as easily as a turf-stack.” “I tell you what, Mr. Egan,”
replied Curran, his pistol in his hand, and Egan scowling at him
under his brows, . . . . . “I wish to take no advantage of you,
whatever; let my size be chalked out upon your side, and I am
quite content that every shot which hits outside that mark shall
go for nothing.” They fired, but without effect. The shots,
after such a dialogue, were too aimless to produce injury.
Egan was an unsuccessful candidate for Parliament, for the
borough of Tallah; but at the period of the “Union,” he became
a member. -
The fourth encounter of Curran was with Lord Buckingham-
shire. Strangely enough, John Egan was his second.
CURRY, SIR PIERS DE, and ANDREW NICOLson. In Scotland,
I suppose in the year 1263. Single combat, in the presence of
opposing armies, during the invasion of Haco, King of Norway.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 137
Sir Piers, one of the noblest of the Scottish knights, came
upon the field, wearing a helmet inlaid in gold and set with
precious stones, and a sword hung in a belt studded with jewels.
His antagonist, an officer of rank and valor in the army of the
Norsemen, irritated at his insults in riding round and round the
circle, brandishing his spear, and trying to provoke an encounter,
quitted the troops under his command, and attacked him with
furv.
§. Piers, in passing, aimed his spear at Nicolson, who, parry-
ing it with his sword, struck the knight a blow, which, it is
related, severed his thigh from his body, and killed him on the
spot.
CUSHING, General THoMAs H., and MR. LEwis, a member of
Congress from Virginia. Cushing's life was saved, as supposed,
by his watch, which was struck by his adversary's ball. It was
remarked by one to whom the incident was related, that “it
must be a good watch to keep time from eternity.”
CUTTING, HoN. FRANCIs B., member of Congress from New
York, and HoN. JoHN C. BRECKINRIDGE, member from Ken-
tucky. Difficulty in debate, March 21st and 23d, 1854. The bill
entitled “An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kan-
zas,” coming up in the House in order, Mr. Richardson of Illinois
moved its reference to the Committee on Territories; and Mr.
Cutting immediately followed with a motion that it be referred
to the Committee of the whole House upon the State of the
Union, and upon that motion called the previous question. In
the course of the discussion that followed, Messrs. Cutting and
Breckinridge indulged in remarks extremely personal, which led
to a correspondence, and to some of the usual arrangements for
a hostile meeting. The affair, on the part of Mr. Cutting, was
committed to Colonel Monroe of New York, and General Shields,
a member of the Senate from Illinois; and on the part of Mr.
Breckinridge, to Colonel Hawkins of Kentucky, and Hon. Wil-
liam Preston, a member of the House from that State. The
latter gentleman rose in his place, on the 31st of March, and
said, he was authorized “to state that the matters in dispute had
been settled in a manner which is mutually satisfactory, and
which is conceived alike honorable to both the gentlemen who
were engaged in the debate.”
CyRUs, King of Persia. Challenge, about 555 years B. C., to
*
12 + -
138 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
the King of Assyria, to terminate the quarrel between them by
single combat. The defiance was not accepted.
DALLAs, ALEXANDER. J. See Hoole, R. A.
DALY, RICHARD, an Irish barrister of the last century. Bar-
rington says that, in two years, he fought three duels with sword,
and thirteen with pistol, yet received no material harm. Daly, in
the course of his life, figured as the patentee of the Theatre Royal,
Dublin, and was the first to introduce on the Dublin boards Miss
Francis, who subsequently, as Mrs. Jordan, and as the mother
of a large family by William IV. of England (while Duke of
Clarence) obtained an unenviable fame. See Barrington, Sir
Jonah.
DAMMARTIN, ANTHoNY DE CHABANNES, Count of Challenge,
in the reign of Charles VII. of France, and about the middle of
the fifteenth century.
The Dauphin formed a conspiracy to deprive the King of his
crown and personal liberty. The Count was his accuser. The
Dauphin denied the charge, and gave the Count the lie. To this
the Count replied with much dignity : “I know the respect
which is due to the son of my master; but the truth of my de-
position I am ready to maintain, by arms, against all those of
the Dauphin's household who will come forward to contradict
it.” The challenge was not accepted. -
DANIEL, J. M., and E. W. JoHNson. On the Maryland line,
near Washington, in 1852. The parties, editors of newspapers
of opposite political sentiments, Richmond, Virginia, met in con-
sequence of the severe articles which had appeared in their
journals, respectively.
The account is, that, having exchanged shots, their seconds
induced them to become friends. Mr. Daniel, I conclude, had
an affair, the year previous, with Mr. Scott, a member of the
Virginia Legislature, which terminated without harm to either.
DANIELs, THoMAs. See Ganaht, Charles.
DANTZLER, O. M., and W. J. KEITH. In North Carolina, in
1852. Both were citizens of South Carolina. Keith was
wounded. - -
DAVID, son of Jesse. See Goliath of Gath.
DAVIs, S. G., a member of the Virginia Legislature, and
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 139
RoBERT RIDGwAy, editor of a Virginia newspaper. At or near
Bladensburgh, in 1853; with pistols. Mr. Davis, who was the
challenger, fired, and missed. Mr. Ridgway declined to fire,
and the two gentlemen became reconciled.
DAVIs, Lieutenant R. See Wetmore, George Ludlow.
DAYTON, JonATHAN. Challenge, in 1803, to De Witt Clinton.
The gentlemen were Senators in Congress. I find in the “An-
nals of Congress,” that Mr. Dayton said in debate, October
24th : “The custom of the gentleman from New York has
been of late to arraign motives instead of meeting arguments,”
&c., &c.; and that Mr. Clinton immediately rejoined : “The
charge of the gentleman from New Jersey is totally unfounded.
I am not in the habit of arraigning motives, as this Senate
can witness, and the charge is totally untrue.” On the same
day, I find that Mr. Dayton, at the close of a speech, remarked,
that his “high respect for the Senate restrains me from replying
in those terms which are due to such rudeness and such inde-
cency of language as that in which the member “from New
York’ has indulged himself: there will be a fitter time and a
fitter place for taking that notice of which it merits.”
A letter written at Washington at the moment contains an
account of the result : — º -
“In my last I mentioned the ruffle between General Dayton and Mr.
De Witt Clinton. It seems, that, immediately after the adjournment,
General D. sent a card to Mr. C. requiring an explanation. No answer
was given; but in the evening two gentlemen waited on the General
with a project for accommodation, which the General rejected, still de-
manding the explanation, i.e. apology. About eleven o'clock in the
evening, General D. sent his challenge; and Mr. C. consented to say, in
writing, that, in the language he had used, he had not intended the slightest
imputation upon the veracity of General Dayton, &g, &c. This amende
onorable was read in Senate; but the New York Senator had left the
city on his way home.”
DECATUR, STEPHEN, Post-Captain in the navy of the United
States. One of the most chivalrous men of any age or country.
He acknowledged the authority of the duello in adjusting private
differences, and would have adopted its principles in war, – ship
against ship. • -
His first affair was in 1799, when a young lieutenant; he was
attached to the frigate United States. While at Philadelphia, on
the recruiting service, a party of seamen enlisted by him de-
140 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
ceived him, and entered on board an India ship. He formally
demanded the deserters of the first officer of the merchant-man,
who, in the course of the interview, insulted him. He stated
the case to his father, who considered that a duel was necessary.
The officer of the India ship was asked to apologize. He refused,
but accepted a challenge. Both, however, pursued their ordi-
nary duties for several days. As soon as circumstances would
permit, they met on the banks of the Delaware, at or near New
Castle. Decatur disclaimed to his friends an intention to inflict
a mortal injury, wounded his antagonist in the hip, as he said he
would do, previous to the combat, and escaped himself without
harm.
The next difficulty which he proposed to settle by an appeal
to arms occurred in 1801, while he served on board the frigate
Essex, in the Mediterranean. The officers of a Spanish ship of
war, under pretence of exercising the police of the port of Bar-
celona, fired over, and brought to, the boats of the Essex, in
passing to and from the shore at night. Decatur, on being mo-
lested in this way, remonstrated with the proper officer, who
treated him uncourteously. Avowing his intention to press the
matter on the following day, he returned to his own ship. On
repairing to the Spanish ship, as intimated, the aggressor was not
to be found. Decatur, leaving a hostile message, went immedi-
ately on shore, but was unsuccessful in his search there. The
Spanish Captain-General interfering, and requesting the aid of
the captain of the Essex, a personal conflict was prevented.
The third was also in the Mediterranean, but as the friend of
Midshipman Joseph Bainbridge, in the year 1803. (See Coch-
7°070. * • - *
When Decatur found that his young countryman had become
involved with the secretary of Sir Alexander Ball, he proposed,
at once, to assume the responsibility of the whole affair. As
Bainbridge was the challenged party, the terms of the duel were
within his control. Decatur, with the knowledge that his princi-
pal was a novice, and that Cochran was a practised duellist, and
sure with the pistol at ten paces, determined that the combat
should be at four paces. Cochran's friend objected, on the
ground that the distance was murderous; thereupon, Decatur
chivalrously offered to become principal himself. His overture
was declined, and four paces agreed upon. Cochran, as is else-
where related in this volume, was slain. Decatur’s course in
the preliminaries, and during the combat, probably saved Bain-
CHALLENGES AND DUET.S. 141
bridge's life. Decatur, demanded by the British authorities, re-
turned to the United States in the Chesapeake, that ship of ill
omen to him and to many other gallant men.
We are now to notice, with much brevity, a proposed combat,
which was intended to task the skill and prowess of some fifteen
hundred men. During the war of 1812, Decatur offered Sir
Thomas Hardy, in a written communication, to meet the British
frigates Endymion and Statira, with the United States, his own
ship, and the Macedonian, under the command of Captain Jacob
Jones. Sir Thomas declined the challenge, in the form presented ;
but expressed his consent to a meeting between the Statira and
the Macedonian. Decatur, anxious for the conflict, renewed the
proposition as to the four frigates, and suggested a plan to re-
move the objections of the British Commodore. But Sir Thomas
again refused his assent. As, too, Decatur would not (for reasons
quite as imperative on his part) allow Captain Jones to fight the
Statira, the matter came to an end. sº
We come to the fatal 22d day of March, 1820, when Decatur
was slain at Bladensburg, by the hand of James Barron, a Post-
Captain in the navy of the United States. They fought with pistols,
at eight paces. Captain William Bainbridge was the second of
Decatur; Captain Jesse O. Elliot, the second of Barron. Sev-
eral other gentlemen of the navy were near, and among them
Captains Rodgers and Porter. Before the fire, the parties ad-
dressed each other thus: Barron, that “he hoped, on meeting in
another world, they would be better friends than in this'': De-
catur, in reply, “I have never been your enemy, sir.” Noth-
ing more was said.
At the first shot, both fell. “They fired so near together,”
says Mr. Hambleton, an eyewitness, “that but one report was
heard.” Decatur was supported a short distance, and sank
down near his antagonist, who was severely, and, as was sup-
posed at the moment, mortally wounded. .
That a conversation occurred between them, and that they ex-
changed forgiveness, is certain. It is to be regretted that no
account of this solemn interview is preserved by Mackenzie, in
his Life of Decatur.
Mr. Hambleton went for the carriage in which Decatur was
placed, and heard only this, addressed by Barron to Decatur, –
“Everything has been conducted in the most honorable manner,
and I forgive you from the bottom of my heart.” .
Mr. Wirt (then Attorney-General of the United States), who
142 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
knew in confidence of the difficulty, and who used every effort
to prevent the duel, in a letter to Judge Carr, dated eleven days
after the fatal combat, states, that “Decatur was apparently shot
dead : he revived after a while, and he and Barron had a parley
as they lay on the ground.” And he continues : —
“Doctor Washington, who got up just then, says that it reminded
him of the closing scene of a tragedy, - Hamlet and Laertes. Barron
º that they should make friends before they met in heaven (for
e supposed they would both die immediately). Decatur said he had
never been his enemy, that he freely forgave him his death, – though
he could not forgive those who had stimulated him to seek his life.
One report says that Barron exclaimed, ‘Would to God you had said
thus much yesterday !” It is certain that the parley was a friendly one,
and that they parted in, peace. Decatur knew he was to die, and his
only sorrow was that he had not died in the service of his country.”
The late Hon. Benjamin Hardin of Kentucky, in a speech in
the Convention of that State, in 1850, is reported to have spoken
thus : —
“Did I not know, while in Washington, Barron and Decatur, two of
the first men at that period in America, come up in mortal array within
sixteen feet of each other, because one was near-sighted, and the rule
was that both should take deliberate sight before the word to fire was
given. They both fired and fell, with their heads not ten feet from each
other. And before they were taken from the ground, each expected
both to die, they spoke to each other, and a reconciliation took place.
They blessed each other, and declared that there was nothing between
them. All that was required to have prevented the meeting was an
explanation between them.”
For this duel there was no cause whatever. Decatur, as
will be seen in the correspondence, “disclaimed all personal
animosity towards” Barron. In his own words, – “Between
you and myself there never has been a personal difference ; but
I have entertained, and do still entertain, the opinion, that your
conduct as an officer, since the affair of the Chesapeake, has
been such as ought to for ever bar your readmission intº the
service.” In this view he declares, that he is sustained, he be-
lieves, by every officer “ of our grade,” with a single exception.
True, Barron, in his letter of November 30, 1819, regards
Decatur’s course to be inconsistent with these declarations, and
retorts with much severity. But Decatur constantly maintained
them. He told Mr. Wirt, that he did not wish to meet Barron,
and that “the duel was forced upon him "; and it is said that
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 143
he assured Commodore Rodgers, on receiving the challenge, that
nothing could induce him to take the life of Barron.
On the day of his death, while at breakfast, remarks Mr.
Hambleton, “he was quite cheerful, and did not appear to have
any desire to take the life of his antagonist; indeed, he declared
that he should be very sorry to do so.” To this evidence, we
may add the reply to Barron, on the ground, once recorded, -
“I have never been your enemy, sir.”
Strangely enough, Decatur was opposed to duelling. The read-
er will find his remarks upon the subject, in his letter of October
31, 1819; and may ask why, entertaining the sentiments there
expressed, he was so often involved in personal combats. His
answer is found in his conversations with Mr. Wirt, and is the
same that other distinguished men have made time and again, -
the omnipotence of public sentiment. -
“He passed,” wrote Mr. Wirt, “to his own case. Fighting, he said,
was his profession, and it would be impossible for him to keep his sta-
tion and preserve his respectability, without showing himself ready,
at all times, to answer the call of any one who bore the name of a gen-
tleman.”
We turn to Barron. I believed that he was a culprit, in the
affair of the Chesapeake, for a long time ; but now, I consider
that he was a victim. Conversations with officers of the British
navy, and the papers of a distinguished naval character of our
own country, in my possession, have led me to conclude that he
was deeply wronged. Like his adversary, on the 22d of March,
he was averse to the practice of duelling. He held it to be “bar-
barous,” and said that it ought not to be countenanced in “civilized
society,” even when in correspondence with the brother officer
who fell by his hand. Why, then, did he violate his convictions
of right? We shall see. I quote from Mackenzie. “Some
individual, ingenious in fomenting quarrels for others, contrived
to make the [opinion of Decatur as to Barron's being re-employed
in the service] the occasion of personal difficulty between Com-
modore Decatur and Commodore Barron.” In commenting
upon the relations of the parties at a later period, and in Janu-
ary, 1820, the biographer states, that “a letter . . . . to Decatur
throws much light on a secret agency, which, not unsuspected
by himself, had revived and fostered this difficulty until it had
reached its present state of irritation.” In this letter, Decatur
was informed, that “is the sole instigator of the renewal
of the correspondence, and will prevent any sort of adjustment
144 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
if he can do so.” Of the persons mentioned in this notice, Mr.
Harden is now the sole survivor. But the individual referred
to, whose name is suppressed by Mackenzie, is still remembered
by many who yet live. That Barron was thus advised and
“stimulated,” gave Decatur great pain in his last moments.
The entire correspondence follows. It is marked with unbe-
coming asperity. How much of it was blotted out, while the
parties to it lay weltering in their blood, will never be known.
Commodore Barron to Commödore Decatur.
“Hampton, Virginia, June 12th, 1819.
“SIR, -I have been informed in Norfolk, that you have said that
you could insult me with impunity, or words to that effect. If you
have said so, you will, no doubt, avow it, and I shall expect to hear
from you.”
Commodore Decatur to Commodore Barron.
“Washington, June 17th, 1819.
“SIR, -I have received your communication of the 12th instant.
Before you could have been entitled to the information you have asked
of me, you should have given up the name of your informer. That
frankness which ought to characterize our profession required it. I shall
not, however, refuse to answer you on that account, but shall be as can-
did in my communication to you as your letter or the case will warrant.
“Whatever I may have thought or said, in the very frequent and
free conversations I have had respecting you and your conduct, I feel a
thorough conviction, that I never could have been guilty of so much
egotism as to say, that “I could insult you’ (or any other man) “with
impunity.’”
Commodore Barron to Commodore Decatur.
“Hampton, Virginia, June 25th, 1819.
“SIR,-Your communication of the 17th instant, in answer to mine
of the 12th, I have received. ' -
“The circumstances that urged me to call on you for the information
requested in my letter would, I presume, have instigated you, or any
other person, to the same conduct that I pursued. Several gentlemen
in Norfolk, not your enemies, nor actuated by any malicious motive,
told me that such a report was in circulation, but could not now be
traced to its origin. I therefore concluded to appeal to you, supposing,
under such circumstances, that I could not outrage any rule of decorum
or candor. This, I trust, will be considered as a just motive for the
course I have pursued. Your declaration, if I understand it correctly,
relieves my mind from the apprehension, that you had so degraded my
character as I had been induced to allege.” --
Commodore Decatur to Commodore Barron.
“Washington, June 29th, 1819.
“SIR,--I have received your communication of the 25th, in answer
CHALLENGES AND DUELs. 145
to mine of the 17th ; and as you have expressed yourself doubtfully as
to your correct understanding of my letter of the aforesaid date, I have
now to state, and I request you to understand distinctly, that I meant
no more than to disclaim the specific and particular expression to which
your inquiry was directed, to wit, that I had said that I could insult you
with impunity. As to the motives of the ‘several gentlemen of Nor-
folk, your informants, or the rumors ‘which cannot be traced to their
origin, on which their information was founded, or who they are, it is a
matter of perfect indifference to me, as are also your motives in making
such an inquiry upon such information.”
Commodore Barron to Commodore Decatur.
“Hampton, October 23d, 1819.
“SIR,--I had supposed that the measure of your ambition was nearly
completed, and that your good fortune had rendered your reputation
for acts of magnanimity too dear to be risked wantonly on occasions
that never can redound to the honor of him that would be great. I had
also concluded that your rancor towards me was fully satisfied, by the
cruel and unmerited sentence passed upon me by the court of which
you were a member ; and, after an exile from my country, family, and
friends, of nearly seven years, I had concluded that I should now be
allowed, at least, to enjoy that solace with this society, that lacerated
feelings like mine required, and that you would have suffered me to
remain in quiet possession of those enjoyments. But scarcely had I set
my foot on my native soil, ere I learned that the same malignant spirit
which had before influenced you to endeavor to ruin my reputation
was still at work, and that you were ungenerously traducing my charac-
ter whenever an occasion occurred which suited your views, and, in
many instances, not much to your credit as an officer, through the me-
dium of our juniors. Such conduct cannot fail to produce an injurious
effect on the discipline and subordination of the navy. A report of this
sort, sir, coming from the respectable and creditable sources it did,
could not fail to arrest my attention, and to excite those feelings which
might maturally be expected to arise in the heart of every man, who
professes to entertain principles of honor, and intends to act in con-
formity with them. º,
“With such feelings, I addressed a letter to you, under date of the
12th of June last, which produced a correspondence between us, which,
I have since been informed, you have endeavored to use to my further
injury, by sending it to Norfolk, by a respectable officer of the navy, to
be shown to some of my particular friends, with a view of alienating
from me their attachment. I am also informed, that you have taunt-
ingly and boastingly observed, that you would cheerfully meet me in
the field, and hoped I would yet act like a man, or that you had used
words to that effect. ...sº
“Such conduct, sir, on the part of any one, but especially one occu-
pying the influential station under the government which you hold,
towards an individual situated as I am, and oppressed as I have been,
and that chiefly by your means, is unbecoming you as an officer and
.. 13 -
146 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
a gentleman, and shows a want of magnanimity, which, hostile as I have
found you to be towards me, I had hoped, for your own reputation, you
possessed. It calls loudly for redress at your hands. I consider you as
having given the invitation, which I accept, and will prepare to meet
you at such time and place as our respective friends, hereafter to be
named, shall designate. I also, under all the circumstances of the case,
consider myself entitled to the choice of weapons, place, and distance;
but should a difference of opinion be entertained by our friends, I flat-
ter myself, from your known personal courage, that you would disdain
any unfair advantage, which your superiority in the use of the pistol,
and the natural defect in my vision, increased by age, would give you.
I will thank you not to put your name on the cover of your answer, as
I presume you can have no disposition to give unnecessary pain to the
females of my family.”
Commodore Decatur to Commodore Barron.
“Washington, October 31st, 1819.
“SIR,- Your letter of the 23d instant has been duly received.
Prior to giving it that reply which I intend, its contents suggest the ne-
cessity of referring to our June correspondence. -
“On the 12th of June last, you addressed to me a note, inquiring
whether I had said, that “I could insult you with impunity.” On the
17th of June, I wrote to you, in reply, as follows: “Whatever I may
have thought or said in the very frequent and free conversations I have
had respecting you and your conduct, I feel a thorough conviction, that I
never could have been guilty of so much egotism, as to say that I could
insult you (or any other man) with impunity.’
“On the 25th of June you again wrote to me, and stated that the re-
port on which you had grounded your query of the 12th of June
‘could not now be traced to its origin, and your letter is concluded by
the following words: ‘Your declaration, if I understand it correctly,
relieves my mind from the apprehension, that you had so degraded my
character as I had been induced to allege.’ Immediately on receiving
your letter of the 25th of June, I wrote to you on the 29th of June, as
follows: “As you have expressed yourself doubtfully as to your correct
understanding of my letter of the 17th of June, I have now to state, and
Irequest you to understand distinctly, that I meant no more than to dis-
claim the specific and particular expression to which your inquiry was
directed, to wit, that I had said, “I could insult you with impunity.”
Here ended our June correspondence, and with it all kind of communi-
cation, till the date of your letter of the 23d instant, which I shall now
proceed to notice. º
“Nearly four months having elapsed since the date of our last cor-
respondence, your letter was unexpected to me, particularly as the
terms used by you in the conclusion of your letter to me of the 25th of
June, and your silence since receiving my letter of the 29th of June,
indicated, as I thought, satisfaction on your part. But it seems that
you consider yourself aggrieved by my sending our June correspond-
ence to Norfolk. I did not send the June correspondence to Norfolk,
CHALLENGES AND DUET, S. 147
until three months had expired after your last communication, and not
then until I had been informed, by a captain of the navy, that a female
of your acquaintance had stated that such a correspondence had taken
place. If that correspondence has, in any degree, ‘alienated your
friends from you, such effect is to be attributed to the correspondence
itself. I thought the papers would speak for themselves, and sent them
without written comment.
“With respect to the court-martial upon you, for the affair of the
Chesapeake, to which you have been pleased to refer, I shall not treat.
the officers who composed that court with so much disrespect, as to
attempt a vindication of their proceedings. The chief magistrate of the
country approved them; and the nation approved them; and the sen-
tence has been carried into effect. But, sir, there is a part of my con-
duct on that occasion, which it does not appear irrelevant to revive in
your recollection. It is this. I was present at the court of inquiry upon
you, and heard the evidence then adduced for and against you; thence I
drew an opinion altogether unfavorable to you; and when I was called
upon, by the Secretary of the Navy, to act as a member of the court-
martial ordered for your trial, I begged to be excused the duty, on the
ground of my having formed such an opinion. The honorable Secretary
was pleased to insist on my serving. Still anxious to be relieved from
this service, I did, prior to taking my seat as a member of the court, com-
municate to your able advocate, General Taylor, the opinion I had formed
and my correspondence with the Navy Department upon the subject, in
order to afford you an opportunity, should you deem it expedient, to
protest against my being a member, on the ground of my not only hav-
ing formed, but expressed, an opinion unfavorable to you. You did not
protest against my being a member. Duty constrained me, however un-
pleasant it was, to take my seat as a member. I did so, and discharged
the duty imposed on me. You, I find, are incapable of estimating the
motives which guided my conduct in this transaction.
“For my conduct, as a member of that court-martial, I do not con-
sider myself as in any way accountable to you. But, sir, you have
thought fit to deduce, from your impressions of my conduct as a member
of that court-martial, inferences of personal hostility towards you. In-
fluenced by feelings thence arising, you commenced the June corre-
spondence, a correspondence which I had hoped would have terminated
our communications.
“Between you and myself there never has been a personal differ-
ence; but I have entertained, and do still entertain, the opinion, that
your conduct as an officer, since the affair of the Chesapeake, has been
such as ought to for ever bar your readmission into the service.
- “In my letter to you of the 17th of June, although I disavowed the
particular expressions to which you invited my attention, candor required
that I should apprise you, that I had not been silent respecting you.
I informed you that I had had very frequent and free conversations re-
specting you and your conduct; and the words were underscored, that
they might not fail to attract your particular attention. Had you asked
148 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
what those frequent and free conversations were, I should, with the
same frankness, have told you; but, instead of making a demand of
this kind, you reply to my letter of the 17th of June, ‘that my declara-
tion, if correctly understood by you, relieved your mind,’ &c. That
you might correctly understand what I did mean, I addressed you, as
before observed, on the 29th of June, and endeavored, by underscoring
certain precise terms, to convey to you my precise meaning. To this
last letter I never received any reply. º
“Under these circumstances, I have judged it expedient, at this time,
to state, as distinctly as may be in my power, the facts upon which I
ground the unfavorable opinion which I entertain, and have expressed,
of your conduct as an officer, since the court-martial upon you, while I
disclaim all personal enmity towards you.
“Some time after you had been suspended from the service, for your
conduct in the affair of the Chesapeake, you proceeded, in a merchant
brig, to Pernambuco ; and by a communication from the late Captain
Lewis, whose honor and veracity were never yet questioned, it appears
that you stated to Mr. Lyon, the British Consul at Pernambuco, with
whom you lived, ‘that, if the Chesapeake had been prepared for action,
you would not have resisted the attack of the Leopard; assigning as a
reason, that you knew (as did also our government) there were de-
serters on board your ship; that the President of the United States
knew there were deserters on board, and of the intention of the British
to take them; and that the President caused you to go out in a defence-
less state, for the express purpose of having your ship attacked and dis-
graced, and thus attain his favorite object of involving the United
States in a war with Great Britain.” For confirmation of this informa-
tion, Captain Lewis refers to Mr. Thomas Goodwin, of Baltimore, the
brother of Captain Ridgely, of the navy, who received it from Mr. Lyon
himself. Reference was made to Mr. Goodwin, who, in an official com-
munication, confirmed all that Captain Lewis had said. The veracity
and respectability of Mr. Goodwin are also beyond question. You will
be enabled to judge of the impression made upon Captain Lewis's mind
by the following strong remarks he made on the subject.
“‘I am now convinced that Barron is a traitor; for I can call by no
other name a man who would talk in this way to an Englishman, and
an Englishman in office.” & **
“These communications are now in the archives of the Navy Depart-
ment.
“If, sir, the affair of the Chesapeake excited the indignant feelings
of the nation towards Great Britain, and was, as every one admits, one
of the principal causes which produced the late war, did it not behoove
you to take an active part in the war, for your own sake, patriotism out
of the question-?
“But, sir, instead of finding you in the foremost ranks, on an occa-
sion which so emphatically demanded your best exertions, it is said, and
is credited, that you were, after the commencement of the war, to be
found in command of a vessel sailing under British license / Though
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 149
urged by your friends to avail yourself of some one of the opportunities
which were every day occurring, in privateers, or other fast-sailing
merchant-vessels, sailing from France and other places, to return to
your country during the war, it is not known that you manifested a dis-
position to do so, excepting in the single instance by the cartel John
Adams, in which vessel you must have known you could not be per-
mitted to return, without violating her character as a cartel.
“You say you have been oppressed. You know, sir, that by absent-
ing yourself, as you did for years, from the country, without leave
from the government, you subjected yourself to be stricken from the
rolls. You know, also, that, by the tenth article of the act for the
better government of the navy, all persons in the navy holding inter-
course with an enemy become subject to the severest punishment known
to our laws. You have not for the offence before stated, to my knowl-
edge, received even a reprimand : and I do know, that your pay, even
during your absence, has been continued to you.
“As to my having spoken of you injuriously to ‘junior officers,' I
have to remark, that such is the state of our service, that we have but
few seniors. If I speak with officers at all, the probability is it will be
with a junior.
“On your return to this country, your efforts to re-establish yourself
in the service were known, and became a subject of conversation with
officers, as well as others. In the many and free conversations I have
had respecting you and your conduct, I have said, for the causes above
enumerated, that, in my opinion, you ought not to be received again
into the naval service; that there was not employment for all the
officers who had faithfully discharged their duty to their country in the
hour of trial; and that it would be doing an act of injustice to employ
you, to the exclusion of any one of them. In speaking thus, and in
endeavoring to prevent your readmission, I conceive I was performing
a duty I owe to the service; that I was contributing to the preservation
of its respectability. Had you made no effort to be re-employed, after
the war, it is more than probable I might not have spoken of you. If
you continue your efforts, I shall certainly, from the same feelings of
public duty by which I have hitherto been actuated, be constrained to
continue the expression of my opinions; and I can assure you, that, in
the interchange of opinions with other officers respecting you, I have
never met with more than one who did not entirely concur with me.
“The objects of your communication of the 23d, as expressed by you,
now claim my notice. You profess to consider me as having given you
an invitation.’ You say that you have been told, that I have “taunt-
1I]
field, and hoped you would yet act like a man.’
“One would naturally have supposed, that, after having so recently
been led into error by ‘rumors, which could not be traced, you would
have received with some caution subsequent rumors; at all events, that
you would have endeavored to trace them, before again venturing to
act upon them as if they Mºre true. Had you putsued this course, you
13 .

ſº § and boastingly observed, that I would cheerfully meet you in the,
150 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
would have discovered that the latter rumors were equally unfounded
as the former. *
“I never invited you to the field; nor have I expressed a hope that
you would call me out. I was informed by a gentleman with whom
you had conferred upon the subject, that you left Norfolk for this place,
some time before our June correspondence, with the intention of calling
me out. I then stated to that gentleman, as I have to all others with
whom I have conversed upon the subject, that, if you made the call, I
would meet you; but that, on all scores, I should be much better
pleased to have nothing to do with you. I do not think that fighting
duels, under any circumstances, can raise the reputation of any man,
and have long since discovered, that it is not even an unerring criterion
of personal courage. I should regret the necessity of fighting with any
man; but, in my opinion, the man who makes arms his profession is not
at liberty to decline an invitation from any person, who is not so far
degraded as to be beneath his notice. Having incautiously said I
would meet you, I will not consider this to be your case, although many
think so; and if I had not pledged myself, I might reconsider the case.
“As to ‘weapons, place, and distance, if we are to meet, those points
will, as is usual, be committed to the friend I may select on the occasion.
As far, however, as it may be left to me, not having any particular
prejudice in favor of any particular arm, distance, or mode (but on the
contrary disliking them all), I should not be found fastidious on those
points, but should be rather disposed to yield you any little advantage
of this kind. As to my skill in the use of the pistol, it exists more in
your imagination than in reality. For the last twenty years I have
had but little practice, and the disparity in our ages, to which you have
been pleased to refer, is, I believe, not more than five or six years. It
would have been out of the common course of nature, if the vision of
either of us had been improved by years. -
“From your manner of proceeding, it appears to me, that you have
come to the determination to fight some one, and that you have selected
me for that purpose; and I must take leave to observe, that your object
would have been better attained, had you made this decision during our
late war, when your fighting might have benefited your country, as well
as yourself. The style of your communication, and the matter, did not
deserve so dispassionate and historical a notice as I have given it; and
had I believed it would receive no other inspection than yours, I
should have spared myself the trouble. The course I adopted with
our former correspondence, I shall pursue with this, if I shall deem it
expedient.”
Commodore Decatur to Commodore Barron.
“Washington, November 5th, 1819.
“SIR,- Since my communication to you of the 31st ultimo, I have
been informed by a gentleman entitled to the fullest credit, that you
were not afloat till after the peace; consequently, the report, which
I noticed of your having sailed under British license must be un-
founded.”
w
CIHALLENGES AND DUEI.S. 151
Commodore Barron to Commodore Decatur. |
- “Hampton, November 20th, 1819.
“SIR,-Unavoidable interruption has prevented my answering your
two last communications as early as it was my wish to have done; but
in a few days you shall have my reply.”
Commodore Barron to Commodore Decatur.
- “Hampton, November 30th, 1819.
“SIR, - I did not receive until Tuesday, the 9th instant, your very
lengthy, elaborate, and historical reply, without date, to my letter to
you of the 23d ultimo; which, from its nature and object, did not, I
conceive, require that you should have entered so much into detail, in
defence of the hostile and unmanly course you hawe pursued towards
me, since the “affair of the Chesapeake,” as you term it. A much more
laconic answer would have served my purpose, which, for the present,
is nothing more than to obtain at your hands honorable redress for the
accumulated insults which you, sir, in particular, above all my enemies,
have attempted to heap upon me, in every shape in which they could
be offered. Your last voluminous letter is alone sufficient proof, if none
other existed, of the rancorous disposition you entertain towards me,
and the extent to which you have carried it. That letter I should no
otherwise notice, than merely to inform you it had reached me, and
that I am prepared to meet you in the field, upon anything like fair and
equal grounds; but inasmuch as you have intimated that our correspond-
ence is to go before the public, I feel it a duty I owe to myself, and to
the world, to reply particularly to the many calumnious charges and as-
persions, with which your “dispassionate and historical notice’ of my
communication so abundantly teems; ºwishing you, sir, at the same
time, “distinctly to understand,’ that it is not for you alone, or to justify
myself in your estimation, that I take this course.
“You have dwelt much upon our ‘June correspondence,’ as you style
it, and have made many quotations from it. I deem it unnecessary,
however, to advert to it, further than to remark, that, although “nearly
four months’ did intervene between that correspondence and my letter
of the 23d ultimo, my silence arose not from any misapprehension of the
purport of your contumacious “underscored’ remarks, nor from the
malicious designs they indicated, nor from a tame disposition to yield
quietly to the operation which either might have against me; but from
a tedious and painful indisposition, which confined me to my bed the
chief part of that period, as is well known to almost every person here.
I anticipated, however, from what I had found you capable of doing to
my injury, the use to which you would endeavor to pervert that cor-
respondence, and have not at all been disappointed. So soon as I was
well enough, and heard of your machinations against me, I lost no time
in addressing to you my letter of the 23d ultimo; your reply to which
I have now more º to notice. I have not said, nor did I
mean to convey such an idea, nor will my letter bear the interpretation,
that your forwarding to Norfolk our ‘June correspondence” had, in any
152 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
degree, ‘alienated my friends from me,’ but that it was sent down there
with that view. * *
“It is a source of great consolation to me, sir, to know that I have
more friends, both in and out of the navy, than you are aware of; and
that it is not in your power, great as you may imagine your official in-
fluence to be, to deprive me of their good opinion and affection. As to
the reason which seems to have prompted you to send that correspond-
ence to Norfolk, ‘that a female of my acquaintance had stated, that
such a one had taken place, I will only remark, that she did not derive
her information from me; that it has always been, and ever will be,
with me, a principle, to touch as delicately as possible upon reports said
to come from females, intended to affect injuriously the character of any
one; and that, in a correspondence like the present, highly as I estimate
the sex, I should never think of introducing them as authority. Fe-
males, sir, have nothing, or ought to have nothing, to do in controver-
sies of this kind. In speaking of the court-martial which sat upon my
trial, I have cast no imputation or reflection upon the members, individ-
ually, who composed it, (saving yourself) which required that you
should attempt a vindication of their proceedings, champion as you are,
and hostile as some of them may have been to me; nor does the lan-
guage of my letter warrant any such inference.
“I merely meant to point out to you, sir, what you appear to have
been incapable of perceiving, the indelicacy of your conduct, (to say
the least of it.) in hunting me out as an object for malignant persecu-
tion, after having acted as one of my judges, and giving your voice in
favor of a sentence against me, which, I cannot avoid repeating, was
‘cruel and unmerited.’ It is the privilege, sir, of a man deeply injured
as I have been by that decision, and conscious of his not deserving it, as
I feel myself, to remonstrate against it; and I have taken the liberty to
exercise that privilege. A
“You say that ‘the proceedings of the court have been approved by
the chief magistrate of our country, that the nation approved of them,
and that the sentence has been carried into effect.’ It is true, the Pres- .
ident of the United States did approve of that sentence, and that it was
carried into effect; full and complete effect, which I should have sup-
posed ought to have glutted the envious and vengeful disposition of
your heart; but I deny that the nation has approved of that sentence,
and, as an appeal appears likely to be made to them, I am willing to sub-
mit the question. #. part you took on that occasion, it was totally
unnecessary, I assure you, “to revive in my recollection’; it is indelibly
imprinted on, my mind, and can never, while I have life, be erased.
You acknowledge you were present at the court of inquiry in my case,
“heard the evidence for and against me, and had, therefore, formed and
expressed an opinion unfavorable to me’; and yet your conscience was
made of such pliable materials, that because the then “honorable Secre-
tary was pleased to insist on your serving as a member of the court-
martial, and because I did not protest against it, you conceive that
‘duty constrained you, however unpleasant, to take your seat as a mem-
f
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 153
bºrº although you were to act under the solemn sanction of an oath, to
render me impartial justice, upon the very testimony which had been
delivered in your hearing, before the court of inquiry, and from which
you ‘drew an opinion altogether unfavorable to me.’
“IIow such conduct can be reconciled with the principles of common
honor and justice, is to me inexplicable. Under such circumstances, no
consideration, no power or authority on earth, could or ought to have
forced any liberal, high-minded man to sit in a case, which he had pre-
judged; and, to retort upon you your own expressions, you must have
been ‘incapable of seeing the glaring impropriety of your conduct, for
which, although you do not conceive yourself in any way accountable
to me,' I hope you will be able to account for it with your God and
your conscience.
“You say, between you and myself there never has been a personal
difference, ‘and you disclaim all personal enmity towards me.” If every
step you have taken, every word you have uttered, and every line you
have written in relation to me; if your own admission of the very fre-
quent and free conversations you have had respecting me and my con-
duct, ‘since the affair of the Chesapeake, bear not the plainest stamp
of personal hostility, I know not the meaning of such terms. Were you
not under the influence of feelings of this sort, why not, in your official
capacity, call me, or have me brought before a proper tribunal, to an-
swer the charges you have preferred against me, and thereby give me
a chance of defending myself? Why speak injuriously of me to junior
officers, “which you do not deny’? Why the “many frequent and free
conversations respecting me and my conduct, which you have taken so
much pains to underscore? Why use the insulting expression, that you
‘entertained, and still do entertain, the opinion that my conduct, as an
officer, since that affair, has been such as ought for ever to bar my re-
admission into the service’? and that, in endeavoring to prevent it, ‘you
conceive you were performing a duty you owe to the service, and were
contributing to its respectability’? Why the threat that, if I continued
the efforts you say I have been making to be re-employed, you ‘cer-
tainly should be constrained to continue the expressions of those opin-
ions’’
“Does not all this, together with the whole tenor and tendency of your
letter, manifest the most marked personal animosity against me, which
an honorable man, acting under a sense of public duty, by which you
profess to ‘have been hitherto actuated, would disdain even to show,
much more to feel?
“I shall now, sir, take.up the specific charges you have alleged
against me, and shall notice them in the order in which they stand.
The first is one of a very heinous character. It is that “I proceeded
in a merchant brig to Pernambuco.” Could I, Sir, during the period of
my suspension, have gone anywhere in a national vessel? Could I,
with what was due to my family, have remained idle 2 The sentence
of the court deprived them of the principal means of subsistence. I
was therefore compelled to resort to that"description of employment

154 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
with which I was best acquainted; and on this subject you should have
been silent. But you add, that the late Captain Lewis of the navy, who
had it from Mr. Goodwin, who heard it from Mr. Lyon, the British
Consul at Pernambuco, with whom you undertake to say I lived, repre-
sented me as stating, ‘that, if the Chesapeake had been prepared for
action, I would not have resisted the attack of the Leopard; assigning
as a reason, that I knew, as also did our government, that there were
deserters on board, and of the intention of the British ship to take them,
and that the ship was ordered out, under these circumstances, with a
view to bring about a contest, which might embroil the two nations in a
War.’
“The whole of this, Sir, I pronounce to be a falsehood, a ridiculous,
malicious, absurd, improbable falsehood, which can never be credited
by any man that does not feel a disposition to impress on the opinion of
the public that I am an idiot. That I should, two years after the affair
of the Chesapeake, make such a declaration, when every proof that
could be required of a contrary disposition on the part of the chief mag-
istrate had been given, cannot receive credit from any one but those
that are disposed to consider me such a character as you would repre-
sent me to be. I did not live with Mr. Lyon, nor did I, ever hold a
conversation with him so indelicate as the one stated in Captain Lewis's
letter would have been. And with what object could I have made such
a communication? Mr. Lyon would naturally have felt contempt for a
man that would have suffered himself to have been made a tool of in
so disgraceful an affair. I found Mr. Lyon transacting business in Per-
nambuco. He produced to me a letter from Mr. Hill, the American
Consul in that country, recommending him as entitled to the confidence
of his countrymen, every one of whom, in that port, put their business
into his hands. I did the same, and thus commenced our acquaintance.
He was kind and friendly to me, but never, in any respect, indelicate,
as would have been, in a high degree, such conversation between us.
“Of Mr. Goodwin I know nothing. I have never seen him in all my
life; nor do I conceive that his hearsay evidence can be of any kind of
consequence against me. I was the first that informed the President
and the Secretary of the Navy, that such a letter was in the department,
even before I had seen it. And again, if the mere oral testimony of a
British agent was to be considered as evidence sufficient to arraign an
American officer, I think the navy would be quickly in such a state as
it might be desirable for their nation to place it in. As to the impressions
made upon the mind of Captain Lewis, from this information, and the
‘strong remarks’ he made upon the subject, which you have thought
proper to quote, they by no means establish the correctness of that in-
formation, but only go to show the effect it produced upon the mind of
an individual, who seems to have imbibed a prejudice against me, not
otherwise to be accounted for, except your acquaintance with him. He
is now in his grave, and I am perfectly disposed there to let him rest.
You must, however, have been hard pressed indeed, to be compelled
to resort to such flimsy grounds as those, a degree weaker than even
second-handed testimony, to support your charges against me.
CHAL LENGES AND DUELS. 155
.
“These communications, you observe, are now in the archives of the
Navy Department. Of this fact, Sir, I had been long apprised; and had
you, when searching the records of that department for documents to
injure my character, looked a little further back, you would perhaps
have found others calculated to produce a very different effect. Of my
desire to return to the United States, during the late war, there are
certificates in the Navy Department of the first respectability, which, if
you had been disposed to find and quote, are perhaps lying on the same
shelf from whence you took those that you appear so anxious to bring
to public view; I mean my letter applying for service, as soon as an op-
F. offered, after the term of my suspension expired; and one
etter, above all, you should not have passed over unnoticed, that which
you received from my hand, of May, 1803, addressed to the Secretary
of the Navy, which was one of the principal causes of your obtaining
the first command that you were ever honored with ; and as you may
have forgotten it, I will remind you, on this occasion, that, but little
more than one month previous to the date of that letter, I, by my advice
and arguments, saved you from resigning the service of your country
in a pet, because you were removed from the first lieutenancy of the
New York to that of second of the Chesapeake. But all this, and much
more, is now forgotten by you ; yet there are others that recollect those
circumstances, and the history of your conduct to me will outlive you,
let my fate be what it may. -*
“The affair of the Chesapeake did certainly ‘excite,’ and ought to
have excited, the indignant feelings of the nation towards Great Britain;
but however it may have justified a declaration of war against that
power, it was not, as you assert “every one admits, one of the principal
causes of the late-war. , That did not take place, Sir, until five years
after, when that affair had been amicably, and of course honorably,
adjusted between the two nations. I mention this fact, not on account
of its importance, but because you laid so much stress upon that “affair,’
as a reason why I ought to have returned home during the late war, and
to show, that, although it did happen to be your fortunate lot to have
an opportunity of being in the foremost rank on that occasion, of which
you seem inclined to vaunt, you are ignorant even of the causes which
led to it.
“Having, in your letter of the 5th instant, abandoned the charge of
my having sailed under ‘British license, after the commencement of
the late war, in consequence of information received by you, from a
gentleman entitled to the fullest credit, that I was not afloat until after
the peace, consequently the report which you noticed of my having
sailed under British license, must be unfounded; I have only to remark,
on this head, that, in advancing a charge against me of so serious a na-
ture, and designed and so well calculated as it was to affect materially
my reputation, not only as an officer of the navy, but as a citizen of the
United States, you should first have ascertained that it was founded on
fact, and not on rumor, which you so much harp upon; and that, upon
a proper investigation, you would have discovered your other accusations
to be equally groundless.
156 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
“For my not returning home during the late war, I do not hold my-
self, to use your own expressions, ‘in any way accountable to you, sir.
It would be for the government, I should suppose, to take notice of my
absence, if they deemed it reprehensible; and they no doubt would
have done so, had not the circumstances of the case in their estimation
justified it. That they are perfectly satisfied upon this point, I have
good reason to believe, and trust I shall be able to satisfy my country
also. The President's personal conduct to me, and the memorial of
the Virginia delegation in Congress to him, prove how I stand with
those high characters, your opinion notwithstanding to the contrary.
I deny, sir, that I ever was “urged’ by my friends, as you in mockery
term them, to return home, during the late war; nor could it have been
requisite for me to have been “urged’ to do so by any one. Laying
patriotism out of the question, as you observe, as well as the reasons
why you think “it behooves me’ to adopt that course, there were other
incentives strong enough, God knows, to excite a desire on my part to
return ; and I should have returned, sir, but for circumstances beyond
my control, which it is not incumbent on me to explain to you.
“Had the many opportunities really presented themselves, which you
allege were “every day occurring, of which I might have availed my-
self to return to my country, in privateers or other fast-sailing merchant-
vessels, from France and other places, but of which you produce no
other proof than random assertion, on which most of your other charges
rest ? There were no such opportunities as you say were “every day
occurring’; no, not one within my reach; and some considerable time
after the news of the war arrived in Denmark, it was not believed that
it would continue six months; but if I had received the slightest inti-
mation from the department, that I should have been employed on my
return, I should have considered no sacrifice too great, no exertion
within my power should have been omitted, to obtain so desirable an
object as any mark of my country's confidence would have been to me
in such a moment. A gunboat, under my own orders, would not have
been refused. But what hope had I, when my letter of application for
service was not even honored by an answer? In regard to the John
Adams, I do not deem it proper, on this occasion, to explain my reasons
for making the attempt to return in that ship; but whenever I am
called on by any person properly authorized to make the inquiry, I am
confident that I shall convince him, that I had good reason to believe
that I should obtain a passage in her, notwithstanding your great knowl-
edge on the occasion.
“You say, by absenting myself, for years, from the country, without
leave from the government, I ‘subjected myself to be stricken from the
rolls.' I knew also, by the tenth article of the act for the better govern-
ment of the navy, that all persons in the navy, holding intercourse with
an enemy, became subject to the severest punishment known to the
law; and that for these offences, as you are pleased to term them, ‘I
have not received, to your knowledge, even a reprimand”; but I pre-
sume, if I have not, it is not your fault. What kind and humane for-
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 157
bearance is this, after what I have already endured 1 But, sir, as you
seem to be so very intelligent upon other points, pray tell me, where
was the necessity of my asking for a furlough until the period of my
suspension expired, or even after having reported myself for duty,
without being noticed P As to the charge of my holding intercourse
with the enemy, I am at a loss to conceive to what you allude, and
should degrade myself by giving it any other reply, than to pronounce
it, if you mean to insinuate there was any unlawful or improper com-
munication on my part with the government or any individual of Great
Britain, as a false and foul aspersion on my character, which no conduct
or circumstance of my life, however it might be tortured by your
malice or ingenuity, can, in any manner, justify or support.
“You say, also, that you do know ‘that my pay, even during my
absence, was continued to me.’ It is not the fact, sir. I never, and
until very recently since my return, received but half-pay. This part
of your letter I should not have regarded, were it not to show with
what boldness, facility, and sang-froid, you can make assertions unsus-
tained by the shadow of truth; but if you had made yourself acquaint-
ed with the circumstances relative to my half-pay, you would have
found that not one cent of it was received by me. The government
was so good as to pay the amount to my unfortunate female family,
whose kindest entertainment you have frequently enjoyed.
“Poor, unfortunate children whose ancestors, every man of them,
did contribute every disposable shilling of their property, many of them
their lives, and all of them their best exertions to establish the inde-
pendence of their country, should now be told that the small amount
of my half-pay was considered, by an officer of high rank, too much for
them You have been good enough to inform me, that, on my return
to this country, my “efforts, as you have been pleased to call them, ‘to
reinstate myself in the service, were known, and became a subject of
conversation with officers, as well as others,’ and but for those “efforts,’
it is more than probable you would not have spoken of me.
“This would, indeed, have displayed a wonderful degree of lenity
and courtesy on your part, of which I could not have failed to be duly
sensible. But, sir, I beg leave to ask how and where did you get your
information, that such “efforts’ were made by me; and even admit
they were, why should you alone, disclaiming, as you pretend to do, all
‘personal enmity’ against me, have made yourself, so particularly busy
on the occasion ? Was it because your inflated pride led you to believe,
that the weight of your influence was greater than that of any other offi-
cer of the navy, or that you were more tenacious of its honor and ‘re-
spectability’ than the rest of the officers were 2 You assure me, how-
ever, “that, in the interchange of opinion with other officers respecting me,
you have never met with more than one who did not entirely concur
with you in the opinion you have expressed of me.’ Indeed l and
what is the reason ? It is because, I suppose, you are most commonly
attended by a train of dependants, who, to enjoy the sunshine of your
favor, act as caterers for your vanity, and, revolving round you like
15S CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
‘satellites, borrow their chief consequence from the countenance you may
condescend to bestow upon them.
“You at length arrive at the main point; the object of my letter of
the 23d ultimo, which you might have reached by a much shorter route,
and have saved me the fatigue of being compelled, in self-defence, to
travel with you so far as you have gone. The language of defiance,
represented to have been used by you, “that you would cheerfully meet
me in the field, and hoped I would yet act like a man,’ is disavowed by
you. And you further deny having ever invited me to the field, or ex-
pressed a hope I would call you out; but you observe, that, “being
informed by a gentleman with whom I had conferred upon the subject,
that I left Norfolk, for the seat of government, some time before our
June correspondence, with the intention of calling you out, you stated
to that gentleman, as you have to all others with whom you have con-
yersed upon the subject, that, if I made the call, you, would meet me;
but that, upon all scores, you would be much better pleased to have
nothing to do with me.’ .
“I certainly do not exactly know who that intermeddling gentleman
was, with whom you say I ‘conferred”; but if I may be allowed a con-
jecture, I think I can recognize in him the selfsame officious gentleman,
who, I am creditably informed, originated the report of your having
made use of the gasconading expressions you have disowned. In this
respect I may be mistaken. Be this, however, as it may, I never gave
him, or any other person, to understand that my visit to Washington,
last spring, was for the purpose of ‘ calling you out”; nor did I go there
with any such view.
“How you can reconcile your affected indifference towards me, in
the remark, ‘that on all scores you would be much better pleased to
have nothing to do with me,’ with the very active part, it is generally
known, and which your own letter clearly evinces, you have taken
against me, I am at a loss to conceive. No, sir; you feel not so much
unconcern as you pretend and wish it to be believed you do, in regard
to the course of conduct my honor and my injuries may, in my judg-
ment, require me to pursue. You have a motive, not to be concealed
from the world, for all you have done or said, or for any future en-
deavors you may make, to bar my “readmission’ into the service. It is
true that you have never given me a direct, formal, and written invi-
tation to meet you in the field, such as one gentleman of honor ought
to send to another. But if your own admissions, that you had ‘in-
cautiously said you would meet me if I wished it, and ‘that, if you had
not pledged yourself, you might reconsider the subject, and all this, too,
without any provocation on my part, or the most distant intimation from
me that I had a desire to meet you, do not amount to a challenge, I
cannot comprehend the object or import of such declarations, made, as
they were, in the face of the world, and to those, in particular, who
you knew would not only communicate them to me, but give them cir-
culation. Under all the circumstances of the case, I consider you as
having thrown down the gauntlet, and I have no hesitation in accepting
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 159
it. This is, however, a point which it will not be for me or you to
decide; nor do I view it as of any other importance than as respects
the privilege allowed to the challenged party in relation to the choice
of weapons, distance, &c., about which I feel not more ‘fastidious, I
assure you, sir, than you do ; nor do I claim any advantage whatever,
which I have no right to insist upon. Could I stoop so low as to solicit
any, I know you too well to believe you would have any inclination
to concede them. All I demand is to be placed upon equal grounds
with you ; such as two honorable men may decide upon as just and
7°O1)627°.
p *tion the subject’of duelling I perfectly coincide with the opinions
you have expressed. I consider it as a barbarous practice, which ought
to be exploded from civilized society. But, sir, there may be cases of
such extraordinary and aggravated insult and injury, received by an
individual, as to render an appeal to arms on his part absolutely neces-
sary. Mine I conceive to be a case of that description; and I feel
myself constrained, by every tie that binds me to society, by all that
can make life desirable to me, to resort to this mode of obtaining that
redress due to me at your hands, as the only alternative which now
seems to present itself for the preservation of my honor.
“To conclude. You say, ‘From my manner of proceeding, it ap-
pears to you that I have come to the determination to fight some one,
and that I have selected you for that purpose.” To say nothing of the
vanity you display, and the importance you seem to attach to yourself,
in thus intimating, that, being resolved to fight myself into favor, I
could no otherwise do so than by fixing upon you, the very reverse of
which you infer is the fact, I never wished to fight in this way; and
had you permitted me to remain at rest, I should not have disturbed
gou; I should have pursued the “even tenor of my way,’ without re-
garding you at all. But this would not have suited your ambitious
views. You have hunted me out; have persecuted me with all the
power and influence of your office, and have declared your determi-
nation to drive me from the navy, if I should make any “efforts’ to be
employed; and for what purpose, or from what other motive than to
obtain my rank, I know not. If my life will give it you, you shall have
an opportunity of obtaining it. And now, sir, I have only to add, that
if you will make known your determination, and the name of your
friend, I will give that of mine, in order to complete the necessary ar-
rangements to a final close of this affair.
“I can make no other apology for the apparent tardiness of this
communication, than merely to state, that, being on very familiar terms
with my family, out of tenderness to their feelings I have written under
great restraint.”
Commodore Decatur to Commodore Barron.
“Washington, December 29th, 1819.
“SIR,-Your communication of the 30th ultimo reached me as I
was on the eve of my departure for the North, whence I did not return
160 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
until the 22d instant. It was my determination, on the receipt of your
letter, not to notice it; but upon more mature reflection, I conceive
that, as I have suffered myself to be drawn into this unprofitable discus-
sion, I ought not to leave the false coloring and calumnies, which you
have introduced into your letter, unanswered. You state that a much
more laconic reply to your letter of the 23d of October would have
served your purpose. Of this I have no doubt; and to have insured
such an answer, you had only to make a laconic call. I had already
informed you of the course I had-felt myself bound to pursue respect-
ing you, and of the reasons which induced my conduct, and that, if
you require it, I would overcome my own disinclination, and fight you.
Instead of calling me out for injuries, which you chose to insist that I
have heaped upon you, you have thought fit to enter upon this war of
words.
“I reiterated to you, that I have not challenged, nor do I intend to
challenge you. I do not consider it essential to my reputation that I
should notice anything which may come from you, the more particularly,
when you declare your sole object, in wishing to draw the challenge
from me, is that you may avail yourself of the advantages which rest
with the challenged. It is evident that you think, or your friends for
you, that a fight will help you; but, in fighting, you wish to incur the
least possible risk. Now, sir, not believing that a fight of this nature
will raise me at all in public estimation, but may even have a contrary
effect, I do not feel at all disposed to remove the difficulties that lie in
our way. If we fight, it must be of your seeking; and you must take
all the risk and all the inconvenience which usually attend the chal-
lenger in such cases. -
“You deny having made the communication to the British Consul
at Pernambuco, which Captain Lewis and Mr. Goodwin have repre-
sented. The man capable of making such a communication would
not hesitate in denying it; and until you can bring forward some
testimony other than your own, you ought not to expect that the testi-
mony of those gentlemen will be discredited. As to the veracity of the
British Consul, I can prove, if necessary, that you have yourself vouched
for that. -
“You offer, as your excuse for not returning to your country during
our war with England, that you had not been invited home by the then
Secretary, notwithstanding you had written him, expressive of your
wishes to be employed. You state, that, if you ‘had received the
slightest intimation from the department, that you would have been
employed on your return, you would have considered no sacrifice too
great, no exertion within your power should have been omitted, to
obtain so desirable an object.” From this I would infer, that, in conse-
quence of not receiving this intimation, you did not make the exertions
in your power to return ; and this I hold to be an insufficient excuse.
You do not appear to have made any attempt, except by the way of
the cartel, the John Adams. You cannot believe, that reporting your-
self to the department, at the distance of four thousand miles, when
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 161
the same conveyance which brought your letter would have brought
yourself, will be received as evincing sufficient zeal to join the arms of
your country; and, besides, you say it was not believed, for a consider-
able time after the news of the war arrived in Denmark, that it would
last six months. -
“With those impressions, you must have known that it would have
occupied at least that time for your letter to have arrived at the depart-
ment, you to receive an answer, and then repair to America. You
deny that the opportunities of returning were frequent. The custom-
house entries at Baltimore and New York alone, from the single port
of Bourdeaux, will show nearly a hundred arrivals; and it is well
known, that it required only a few days to perform the journey from
Copenhagen to Bourdeaux, by the ordinary course of post. You deny
having been advised to return to this country, by your friends, during
the war. Mr. Cook of Norfolk, your relative, says he wrote to you to
that effect; and Mr. Forbes, then our Consul at Copenhagen, who is
now at this place, says he urged you in person to do so.
“You have charged the officers, who concur with me in opinion
respecting your claims to service, as being my satellites. I think I am
not mistaken when I inform you, that all the officers of our grade, your
superiors as well as inferiors, with the exception of one, who is your
junior, concur in the opinion, that you ought not to be employed again,
whilst the imputations which now lie against you remain ; nor have
they been less backward than myself in expressing their opinions.
“Your charge of my wishing to obtain your rank will apply to all who
are your juniors, with as much force as to myself. You never have in-
terfered with me in the service, and, at the risk of being esteemed by
..you a little vain, I must say I do not think you ever will. Were I dis-
posed to kill out of my way, as you have been pleased to insinuate,
those who interfere with my advancement, there are others, my supe-
riors, whom I consider fairly barring my pretensions; and it would
serve such purpose better to begin with them. You say, you were the
means of obtaining me the first command I ever had in the service.
I deny it. I feel that I owe my standing in the service to my own
exertions only.
“Your statement, that your advice prevented me from resigning on
a former occasion, is equally unfounded. I have never, since my first
admission into the navy, contemplated resigning; and, instead of being
ordered, as you state, from the first lieutenancy of the New York to
the second of the Chesapeake, Commodore Chauncey, who was then
flag-captain, can testify, that I was solicited to remain as first lieutenant
of the flag-ship; and I should have remained as such, had it not been
for the demand which the government of Malta made for the delivery
of the persons who had been concerned in the affair of honor which
led to the death of a British officer. It was deemed necessary to send
all the persons implicated in that affair out of the way, and I went home
in the Chesapeake as a passenger. . . . . . . . . .
“You have been pleased to allude to my having received the hospi-
14% *
162 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
tality of your family. The only time I recollect being at your house
was on my arrival from the Mediterranean, in the Congress, fourteen
years past. You came on board, and dined with me, and invited the
Tunisian Ambassador and myself to spend the evening with you at
Hampton. I accepted your invitation. Your having now reminded
me of it tends very much towards removing the weight of obligation
I might otherwise have felt on this score.
“You speak of the good conduct of your ancestors. As your own
conduct is under discussion, and not theirs, I cannot see how their for-
mer good character can serve at all your present purpose. Fortunately
for our country, every man stands upon his own merit.
“You state, that the ‘Virginia delegation in Congress’ had present-
ed a memorial in your favor. I would infer from this, that all or the
greater part of the Virginia delegation had interposed in your behalf.
This, sir, is not the fact. A few of them, I am informed, did take an
interest in your case ; but being informed of the charges existing
against you, of which they were before unapprised, they did not press
further your claims. From the knowledge I have of the high-minded
gentlemen that compose the Virginia delegation, if they would take the
trouble to examine your case, I should, for my own part, be entirely
satisfied to place the honor of the service upon their decision.
“You offer, as your excuse for permitting four months to intervene
between our June correspondence (with which, from your letter, you
appeared to be satisfied) and your letter of the 23d of October, your
indisposition. I am authorized in saying, that, for the greater part
of the four months, you were out attending to your usual occupa-
tions.
“Your offering your life to me would be quite affecting, and might
(as you evidently intend) excite sympathy, if it were not ridiculous.
It will not be lost sight of, that your jeopardizing your life depends
upon yourself, and not º me; and is done with a view of fighting
your own character up. I have now to inform you, that I shall pay no
further attention to any communication you may make to me, other
than a direct call to the field.”
Commodore Barron to Commodore Decatur.
“Norfolk, January 16th, 1820.
“SIR,-Your letter of the 29th ultimo I have received. In it you
say, that you have now to inform me that you shall pay no further
attention to any communication that I may make to you, other than a
direct call to the field; in answer to which, I have only to reply, that
whenever you will consent to meet me on fair and equal grounds, that
is, such as two honorable men may consider just and proper, you are at
liberty to view this as that call. The whole tenor of your conduct to
me justifies this course of proceeding on my part. As for your charges
and remarks, I regard them not; particularly your sympathy. You
know not such a feeling. I cannot be suspected of making the attempt
to excite it.”
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 163
Commodore Decatur to Commodore Barron.
“Washington, January 24th, 1820.
“SIR,--I have received your communication of the 16th, and am
at a loss to know what your intention is. If you intend it as a challenge,
I accept it, and refer you to my friend Commodore Bainbridge, who is
fully authorized by me to make any arrangement he pleases, as regards
weapons, mode, or distance.”
Commodore Barron to Commodore Decatur.
“Norfolk, February 6th, 1820.
“SIR, -Your letter of the 29th of December found me confined to
bed, with a violent bilious fever; and it was eight days after its arrival
before I was able to read it. The fever, however, about that time left
me, and my convalescence appeared to promise a moderately quick re-
covery. I therefore wrote you my note of the 16th ultimo. In two
days after, I relapsed, and have had a most violent attack, which has
reduced me very low ; but as soon as I am in a situation to write, you
shall hear from me to the point.”
DENVER, I. W., General. See Gilbert, Hon. Edward.
DERING, SIR CHOLMELEY, baronet and member of Parliament,
and MR. THoRNHILL. In England, year 1711; with pistols.
The baronet was killed. This duel was the occasion of a bill in
Parliament against duelling, but it did not pass.
Mr. Thornhill is introduced by the name of Spinamont in the
Spectator, and is there made to utter the gravest self-accusations
for unfortunately killing in single combat “the man whom of
all men living he most loved.” He bewails the event in the
most abject distress, and says that his sorrow “is too great for
human life to support.”
DESHA, BENJAMIN. See Conway, General.
DESPORTEs, Marquis of See Bouteville, Charles, Count of
D'EstERRE, See O'Connell, Daniel.
DEUJoy, Mons. See Rollin, Mons. Ledru.
DIBBLE, GEORGE M., and E. B. LUNDY. In California, in
1851. Lundy, a Canadian, escaped unharmed. Dibble, “for-
merly a midshipman,” was killed. The seconds were J. C.
Morehead and C. E. G. Moore.
Dickson, or DICKENSoN, and P. W. THoMAs. In California,
1854. The former, a physician of the State Hospital ; the lat-
ter, District Attorney of Placer County. Dickson was killed.
164 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
D'IsrAELI, BENJAMIN. Challenge, in 1835, to Morgan O'Con-
nell. The challenger, a son of the author of the celebrated
Curiosities of Literature, has become a distinguished British
statesman. At the outset of his political career, he was a
Radical, and was thus associated with Daniel O’Connell, Mr.
Hume, and other leaders of the party. But he abandoned his
early friends, joined the Conservatives, and indulged in severe
personal attacks upon his former allies, and especially upon the
great “Liberator.”
Mr. O'Connell replied in a tone of unexampled bitterness. He
charged his assailant with apostasy and ingratitude ; and closed
his vengeful diatribe with these terrible words.
“I cannot,” said he, “divest my mind of the belief, that, if this fel-
low's genealogy were traced, it would be found that he is the lineal
descendant and true heir at law of the impenitent thief who atoned for
his crimes upon the cross.”
Mr. D'Israeli is of Jewish descent, and this sarcasm struck
him like a poisoned arrow. In his uncontrollable madness, he
ventured to rejoin, but to no purpose. In a letter to Mr. O'Con-
nell, he declared his determination to seize the first opportunity
offered him in the House of Commons, to inflict castigation for
the insults which he had received,—a pledge which, it is aver-
red, was never redeemed. His next step was a challenge to
Morgan O'Connell, son of his accuser, who not only declined
his cartel, but published the correspondence in the newspapers.
D'Israeli won no laurels in his quarrel with the O'Connells.
DoRSET, Earl of. See Bruce, Lord Edward.
DoTY, EDwARD, and EDwARD LEISTER. At Plymouth, in
/ 1621. The parties were servants of Stephen Hopkins, and hav-
ing a dispute, they settled it—gentleman-like—with sword and
dagger. Both were wounded. Without a statute law on the
subject, the whole company of Puritans assembled to consider
and to punish the offence. The decision was the wisest that
could have been made. Doty and Leister were ordered to be
tied together, heads and feet, for twenty-four hours, without
food or drink ; but the intercession of their master, their own
humility, and promises, procured a speedy rélease.
This, I suppose, was the first duel in New England. Possibly
it was decisive. A personal combat between the renowned
Miles Standish and John Alden, to adjust their difference about
that arch maiden, Priscilla Mullens, would have been respect-
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 165
able, and might have afforded a precedent; but no persons of
standing, for a generation at least, were likely to imitate two
serving-men, who had been doomed to a punishment so entirely
ridiculous. We of the North are disposed to plume ourselves
upon our freedom from the sin and folly of duelling ; but since
the whole history of our fathers shows that they were as mar-
tial in spirit and in deed as were the Cavaliers who founded the
States of the South, I am not sure that the spectacle of the first
duellists, disposed necks and heels, the objects of jeers and sneers,
is to be disregarded in explaining the difference which has ever
existed in the two sections of the country.
See Boswell, Sir Alearander.
DowdigAN, door-keeper of the Senate of California, and MR.
HAwKINs. In California, 1854; with rifles, forty paces. The
former wounded in the arm. &F
Douglas,
Downing and SMITH. At Gibraltar, about the year 1820.
The first, a lieutenant in the navy of the United States; the
other, a lieutenant in the British army. This duel, and other dis-
putes between officers of the two nations, caused an order of the
British civil and naval authorities in the Mediterranean, that
American ships of war should not enter the port of Gibraltar.
DRAPER, SIR WILLIAM, Knight of the Bath. Challenge, in
1769, to “Junius, – stat nominus umbra.”
Junius, in the first of his celebrated Letters, which appeared
in the Public Advertiser, spoke in terms of great severity of
Lord Granby, the Commander-in-chief of the British army, to
which the knight, who was a military man of some distinction,
replied in the same paper. Junius rejoined, and the result was
a personal controversy. .
Some months afterwards, the Letters of Junius were repub-
lished, and a charge which Sir William pronounced “to be a
most infamous and malicious falsehood” was retained, and
drew from him a communication that concluded in these words.
“I allow that Gothic appeals to cold iron are no better proofs of a
man's honesty and veracity, than hot iron and burning ploughshares are
of female chastity; but a soldier's honor is as delicate as a woman's, –
it must not be suspected. You have dared to throw more than a sus-
picion upon mine: you cannot but know the consequences, which even
the meekness of Christianity would pardon me for, after the injury
you have done me.” . . . . . . -
*
166 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
From the general tone of the knight's letter, it is evident that
he indulged the hope, that his relentless accuser would avow
himself, and afford “satisfaction ”; but Junius was not thus
to be drawn from his concealment. “Your appeal to the sword,”
he said in reply, “though consistent enough with your late pro-
fession, will neither prove your innocence, nor clear you from
suspicion.” And he further excused himself for declining the
call, by the remark, that, ---
“As to me, it is by no means necessary that I should be exposed to the
resentment of the worst and the most powerful men in this country,
though I may be indifferent about yours. Though you would fight,
there are others who would assassinate.”
Still again : —
“I believe, sir, you will never know me. A considerable time must
certainly elapse before we are personally acquainted,” &c., &c.
DRAYTON, WILLIAM HENRY. See Lee, General Charles.
DROMGooDE, GEORGE C., and MR. DUGGER. In 1837, in
North Carolina ; with pistols. Mr. Dromgoole was a member
of Congress from Virginia ; his antagonist, who was mortally
wounded, was a gentleman of the same State.
DRYDEN, CHARLEs. Challenge, in 1701, to Lord Jefferies.
The challenger, a son of the poet; Jefferies, a son of the Lord
Chancellor. The difficulty grew out of the inexcusable conduct
of Lord Jefferies, relative to the poet's burial.
Dr. Johnson relates the story with some particularity, in his
Life of Dryden, but remarks that he once intended to omit it,
as not well founded. An outline of it only belongs to this
volume. From the account, it would seem that, on the decease
of Dryden, the Bishop of Rochester tendered a spot in West-
minster Abbey, and the abbey fees, without charge, and that
Lord Halifax offered to defray the cost of a gentleman's private
funeral, and to give a handsome sum for a monument; which
overtures the widow, and her son Charles, accepted, under an
arrangement, however, (to save their feelings,) that the funeral
should appear to the world as at the family expense. It seems
further, that, at the moment the procession was ready to move
from the house, Lord Jefferies, in passing, ascertained that the
hearse contained the remains of Dryden, and the few coaches,
the friends who were to accompany them to some burial-place;
that he interfered, and offered to undertake on his own account
a proper funeral, and to appropriate the sum of a thousand
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 167
pounds to a monument; — that, by a course of procedure with-
out example, he finally directed the poet’s corpse to be carried
to an undertaker's for embalmment, and induced the gentlemen
present to disperse, in order to assemble on another day; — that,
when applied to, three days afterward, by the undertaker, he
pretended ignorance of his previous directions, and was pleased
to intimate, that, as he was on a drunken frolic on the day he
disturbed the funeral arrangements, he should have nothing
more to do with the matter. Such is the substance of the tale.
The result was, that Dryden's widow and son, unable to satisfy
the Bishop of Rochester and Lord Halifax, were in the greatest
affliction ; and that the poet's body was not committed to the
grave until the lapse of three weeks from the time of decease.
Charles Dryden — the funeral services of his father at last
performed — immediately challenged Lord Jefferies; but re-
ceived no answer. The challenge was renewed, and its renewal
repeated. His lordship continued silent. Incensed beyond en-
durance, Mr. Dryden — denied all redress — determined that
(though he would observe the duello in the combat) Jefferies
should fight him without accepting a cartel, whenever they
should chance to meet. His lordship heard of this resolution,
and departed London. Mr. Dryden—so concludes the story
—ever after attempted to obtain satisfaction, but was disap-
pointed to the day of his death.
DUBERT and ELLESLER. In California, in 1854, with broad-
swords. They had a difficulty about a lady; and met the day
following the dispute, in the presence of friends and spectatºrs.
Both were skilled in the use of the weapon, and fought several
minutes without effect. Ellesler finally received a severe cut on
the sword arm ; when a proposition was made to quit, and to
“ have it out” as soon as his wound should heal. In a moment,
however, the combat was renewed with great ferocity on both
sides. After a lapse of some twenty minutes, Dubert was
stabbed in the side. He expired the next morning.
DUDLEY, SIR HENRY BATE, Baronet. This personage, a cler-
gyman in orders, and known as the “Rev. Henry Bate,” and
as “Parson Bate,” was a duellist of no inconsiderable notoriety.
He took the name of Dudley, in 1784, at which time he was a
rector in the Church. In 1812, he received the living of Wil-
lingham, in Cambridgeshire, and three years later was created
a baronet. In 1816 he was made a prebend in Ely cathedral, a
I68 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
dignity which he retained until his decease, in 1824. At differ-
ent periods of his life, he established and edited several news-
papers, and was the author of a variety of dramatic pieces. At
the time of his death, he was a magistrate for seven counties in
England, and for four in Ireland. A more remarkable blending
of the clerical with the worldly has seldom been seen.
He introduced himself to the notice of the world by an uncleri-
cal exhibition of personal prowess, in a Vauxhall squabble ; and
subsequently fought three duels. Two of his quarrels were caused
by the “beautiful Mrs. Hartley, an actress,” who died in Eng-
land on the same day with himself. Another affair was with
Andrew Stoney Robinson (sometimes called Stoney Bowes), an
officer in the British army. Robinson was determined to marry
the Countess of Strathmore, and accomplished his purpose by
means the most wicked imaginable. After the commencement
of his attentions to the Countess, a series of articles appeared in
Dudley's paper, the Morning Post, which contained the most in-
famous attacks upon her reputation. These attacks became at
last insupportable ; and the Countess declared that she would
marry whoever would challenge and fight the editor of that paper.
Robinson, himself the author of these communications, turned
round upon the unwary Dudley, who had been his dupe, sent
him a message, and a duel in which both were wounded followed.
The Countess, as she had promised, was united to Robinson, but
he treated her most brutally, and a separation ensued.
Such was Parson Bate. Dr. Johnson entertained no respect
for him. Boswell records a conversation in 1784, in which John-
son said, “Sir, I will not allow this man to have merit. No, sir;
what he has is rather the contrary. I will, indeed, allow him
courage, and on this account we so far give him credit,” &c.
Sir Henry Bate Dudley, Baronet, may well be regarded as “a
clergyman of extraordinary character.” That he was “high in
the Church, and an active and respectable magistrate,” renders
his female quarrels and his duels abominable.
DUGGER, See Dromgoole, George C.
DUJARIER and BouvALLóN. In Paris, in 1845, with pistols.
The parties were editors of newspapers; the former of La
Presse, and the latter of the Globe. .
Bouvallon was the challenger, and at the first fire shot his an-
tagonist in the head, and killed him instantly. “The duel grew
A-out of something which occurred at a dinner party given in one
|| || || || || || || 1 , . 1 ... -- . . .
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 169
of the most celebrated establishments at the Palais Royal, at an
expense of fifty-five francs ($11) per head l’”
Bouvallon was tried for murder at Rouen, March, 1846. Sev-
eral interesting incidents occurred.
“The defence was, that the deceased was killed by the accused in a
duel, according to the rules of honor regulating such combats. It was
gravely objected on the part of the prosecution, that the defendant was
not entitled to avail himself of these laws, because, at one period of his
life, he had been guilty of stealing a watch. And a distinguished lawyer
said, that ‘a French jury would only tolerate duels among men of honor,
and a man would forfeit his privilege to commit murder, if it was believed
he had ever been a thief.” - .
“Forty-six witnesses were examined. The first was Alexander Du-
mas, the celebrated and popular writer of the day. “He was the com-
mon friend of both parties engaged in the duel, and being informed that
the weapons selected were pistols, and knowing how unskilful Dujarier
was, sent his son with him to a shooting-gallery, where he was able to
hit a mark as large as a man only twice in fourteen times.” But the tes-
timony of Dumas went strongly to the respectability of the parties as men
of honor /*
Another witness was Lola Montes, an artiste of the theatre
Port St. Martin, who spoke French imperfectly. She was the
wife or mistress of Dujarier. She took measures to prevent the
duel, but was too late. “I was,” said she, in her testimony, “A
BETTER SHOT THAN DUJARIER, AND IF BouvALLON wanted SAT-
IsfacTION, I would HAVE FoughT HIM Myself.” She received
the borpse of Dujarier from the carriage. He bequeathed her
the principal part of his estate, which was very considerable.
The president or judge instructed the jury, that to kill a man
in a duel is murder by the law of France, but that the jury had
a right to declare that Bouvallon killed Dujarier under alleviating
circumstances. The jury retired, and returned in ten minutes.
The foreman, on being asked, “Is the accusation true P’’ an-
swered, “Upon my honor and conscience, before God and man,
the declaration of the jury is, “No : the accused is not guilty.’”
But Bouvallon was fined twenty thousand francs, for the benefit
of the mother and nephews of Dujarier, and in default of pay-
ment was to suffer two years' imprisonment. -
Lola Montes — the account is— retired to Bavaria, and be-
came the mistress of the king. She was created Countess of
8.IIS and possessed much influence in the public affairs of
Bavaria. Such, indeed, was her ascendency, that to her was at-
tributed the suppression of the Jesuits, the dismissal of the min-
15
170 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
istry, the decline of Austrian influence, and the adoption of a
liberal and independent policy. -
The Countess became, two or three years later, a resident of
Switzerland, and thence proceeded to England. In 1849 she
was arrested in London, on a charge of bigamy. Her career in
the United States need not be related. She is now (1854) living
in California. *
DULANY, LLoyd, and the Reverend BENNET ALLEN. In Hyde
… Park, London, in 1782. Dulany was attended on the ground by
Mr. Delancy, and his antagonist by Mr. Robert Morris. Dulany
and the two seconds were, I conclude, “American Loyalists,”
who had taken refuge in England. The duel was fought with
pistols, at eight yards, and about ten o’clock in the evening. The
reverend duellist, before firing, put on his spectacles. His shot
was fatal. Dulany fell, but rose, ran a few yards, and fell again.
He was conveyed to his lodgings, and expired two or three days
afterwards, in great agony. -
The cause of the combat was this. Allen, in 1779, published
in a London newspaper “a variety of American characters,”
and among them that of Dulany, who, in return, called the
anonymous writer, in the same paper, a scoundrel and a coward.
Allen avowed himself the author in 1782; when, after verbal and
written communications through their friends, the terms of a
meeting were arranged.
Allen, at the fall of his adversary, absconded; but finally sur-
rendered himself. He and his second, Morris, were indicted for
murder, and tried at the Old Bailey. Among the witnesses were
two ladies, and Lords Bateman and Mountnorris, who gave the
Reverend Bennet Allen an excellent character. Other witnesses
swore that, a few hours previous to the duel, a man was seen
shooting or practising at a mark, and one of them identified Allen,
positively, as the person; but he proved an alibi. There was
evidence, that, while Allen was the original aggressor, he invited
the conflict, and in the communications which preceded it ap-
plied the most insulting epithets to the ill-fated Maryland loyalist.
It also appeared that his second, Morris, repeatedly urged a post-
ponement of the duel until a proper hour, the next day. -
Mr. Justice Buller, in his charge to the jury, stated that, as to
the law, “there is not, nor ever was, any doubt, that, where two
persons meet together deliberately to fight a duel, and one of
them is killed, the other is guilty of murder, and his second like-
wise.” The jury, after twenty minutes' deliberation, returned a
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 171
verdict, — “Allen, guilty of manslaughter; Morris, not guilty.”
The recorder then pronounced sentence, that the convicted party
should pay a fine of one shilling, and be imprisoned six months
Čn Newgate.
DULONG, M., member of the Chamber of Deputies, and
THoMAs RoberT BUGEAUD, a Marshal of France, and member
of the same body. In France, in 1834, with pistols.
In 1833, the Marshal was appointed to command the citadel of
Blaye, and to watch over the safe-keeping of the Duchess of
Berri. The parties in opposition to the government, and to whom
the Marshal was already sufficiently odious, represented this duty
as degrading to him. *.
Shortly after the Marshal returned from Palermo, where he
deposited the Duchess, in obedience to his instructions, there oc-
curred in the Chamber of Deputies a violent debate, in which he
participated. “Before all other things,” cried Bugeaud, loudly,
“men must learn to obey.” “What!” retorted a voice from
the opposite benches, “what, — even to making themselves jail-
ers ?” The speaker was Dulong. The Marshal demanded an
explanation, which was given and accepted. But the quarrel,
either by accident or design, was rekindled, and a duel followed.
The friends of the Marshal, on the ground, were General
Rumigny and Colonel Larry; those of M. Dulong, George W.
Lafayette and Colonel Bacot. Dulong was shot through the
head. His funeral, according to the political tactics of the time,
very nearly produced a revolution. The Marquis de Lafayette
joined the friends of Dulong, and followed his remains to the
grave on foot; and, overcome with fatigue, on his return to his
residence he took to his bed, which he never again quitted alive.
Bugeaud continued ever after a zealous supporter of Louis
Philippe, and succeeded Marshal Clausel in command in Algiers.
He died in 1849. Among the distinguished men at his bedside
in his last moments were Generals Cavaignac and Bedeau, and
Count Mole. -
DUMONT, EBENEZER. See Lane, J. H.
DUNCAN, ALEXANDER, Member of Congress from Ohio. See
Cilley, Jonathan.
DUNov ANT, JoHN. See Legare, Davidson J.
DüNworTH, , Lieut. See Talbut, Captain.
DUFONT, M., and M. CHAvoix. In France, in 1851. Dupont
\
172 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
was slain. The survivor, it is stated, was doomed by the tribu-
nals to pay a large sum to the family of his adversary.
DURRIEU, M. XAVIER. See Bonaparte, Pierre.
DURYEE, CHARLEs H. See Miller, William, Jun.
*\
E., a Captain, and Captain H., of the army of the Revo-
lution. In 1779. The affair is told in Thacher's Journal.
Captain E. was the challenged party, and at first refused to fight,
and was, in consequence, horse whipped by Captain H. Captain
E. supported the chastisement with wonderful fortitude : his
brother officers subsequently treated him with much contempt,
*and threatened to hoot him out of camp. Captain E, finding
that he must fight or quit the army in disgrace, concluded to
meet his antagonist. The duel was with pistols, at ten paces;
neither party harmed.
EATon, WILLIAM. O. See McKie, James C.
EDwARD III., King of England. Challenge, in 1342, to Philip
de Valois, King of France. The crown devolved to Philip un-
der the Salique law, he being cousin-german to Charles the
Fair, brother of Isabella, the mother of Edward. Edward
claimed the throne, in right of his mother, and in 1340 as-
sumed the title of King of France. A war ensued : during a
truce, provoked by the treacherous conduct of Philip, he pro-
posed to determine the controversy by personal combat. The
invitation was declined. -
In 1349, while Edward was in France, prosecuting his claim
by arms, he gave a cartel to Eustace de Ribaumont, a French
knight or gentleman, on the field of battle, which was accepted.
A furious encounter ensued. The English monarch was twice
beaten to the ground. At last, Ribaumont was compelled to
yield. In consideration of his bravery, Edward, not only re-
leased him without ransom, but gave him a string of pearls,
which he took from his own head. “I know,” said the King,
“you are gay and amorous, and take delight in the company of
ladies and damsels;-let them all know from what hand you had
the present.”
EDWARDs, Major. See Lee, General Charles.
EGAN, John, Barrister at Law. See Curran, John Philpot.
EGERTON, JoHN, and Edward MoRGAN. In England, in
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 173
1608. Egerton was the son of a baronet, and was slain. He
had, in a previous duel, given Morgan his life.
EGREMONT, Lord. See Wilkes, John.
ELDON, Lord. See Mackneath, Robert.
See Dubert.
ELLIOT, JESSE D., Captain in the U. S. Navy. See Decatur,
Stephen, duel with Barron.
ELLESLER,
EssEx, HENRY DE, hereditary standard-bearer of England,
and RoBERT DE MonTFoRD. In England, year 1158. Essex,
in a battle in Wales, threw away the royal standard, and cried
out that the King was slain. Montford asserted that his conduct
was the result of treasonable designs, and offered to prove the
truth of his accusation in single combat. Essex denied the
charge, and accepted the challenge. The duel was fought in
the presence of the King and his court. Essex was defeated,
and expected to be executed ; but the monarch was satisfied with
the confiscation of his estate, and with dooming him to the life
of a monk.
Essex, RoberT DEVEREUx, Earl of, the well-known favorite
of Queen Elizabeth. In 1589, a formidable armament sailed
from Plymouth, England, having on board the claimant of the
crown of Portugal, and many young English nobles, who panted
to humble the pride of Spain. Essex was of the number. Ar-
rived at the gates of Lisbon, the Earl beat a thundering sum-
mons, challenged the governor to come forth, and encounter
him, hand to hand, in single combat. The Spanish functionary
who held the city took no notice of the defiance of the chival-
ric Englishman. .*
In 1591, Essex, while still abroad on the same or a similar
romantic errand, gave a challenge to Villars, the governor of
Rouen. The cause indicates the spirit of the time. Reproached
with cowardice, because he had failed to avenge his brother's
death, he proposed to Villars to meet him on horse or on foot, ,
and by personal encounter to decide “which was the better
man, fought in the better cause, or served the fairest mistress.”
The cautious governor, who cared little for knightly fame, de-
clined the duel; and uncourteously said, that, “as to the beauty
of their mistresses, it was scarcely worth his while to put himself
to much trouble about that." & . . . . - .
15
174 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
In 1597 we find Essex inviting one of his own countrymen to
a trial of skill with the sword. The Queen had bestowed upon
him the dignity of Earl-Marshal, which gave great offence to
the Lord-Admiral, Thomas Howard, Earl of Nottingham, who
claimed the office by right of descent from Mary Plantagenet.
Essex offered to decide the quarrel by duel, with Notting-
ham, or his sons, or all of them ; but Elizabeth would not permit
it, and employed Sir Walter Raleigh to bring about a reconcili-
ation. See also Blount, Charles.
ETEocles and PolyNICEs, brothers, and sons of CEdipus.
The joint sovereignty of Thebes was bequeathed them by their
father. They quarrelled, and made war; wearied finally with
hostilities, it was agreed to terminate their strife by single com-
bat. The brothers accordingly fought under the walls of Thebes.
Both were killed.
EU, Count D’, and GoDEFROI BAYNARD. This was one of the
earliest trials by combat in England. The Count accused Bay-
nard of being engaged in a conspiracy against William Rufus,
and was allowed a field at Salisbury. The duel was fought in
the presence of the King and his court. D'Eu was defeated,
and by the King's order was cruelly mutilated.
EURYBATEs of Argos, and SoPHANEs of Athens. Herodotus
relates, that, when the Athenians besieged AEgina, a challenge
was given by Sophanes, which was accepted, and that Eury-
bates, who had conquered in the Nemean games, was slain.
EUSTON, LoRD. See Burlington, Lord.
Evans, H. D., and F. R. WRIGHT. In California, 1851. The
parties exchanged shots near the “Sans Souci,” San Francisco,
without death or wound. - - -
Evans, W. P. See Rea, C.
EwART, See Sheridan, Richard Brinsley.
FAIR, , and GIST. In Georgia, 1832. Fair was shot
through the heart. Three of Gist's brothers were present on the
ground.
FALKLAND, LORD VIscount, and A. Powell. In England,
1809. The parties were intimate friends. They were present
in a large company in London, when his lordship addressed Mr.
Powell by a nickname, and persisted after it gave offence. This
\
CHAL LENGES AND DUELS. 175
was the sole cause of the quarrel. Lord Falkland was mortally
wounded, but survived two days. He was succeeded by the
present Lord Falkland, who married a daughter of William IV.
by Mrs. Jordan, and was some time Governor of Nova Scotia.
FELTON, JoHN, celebrated in history as the assassin of the
Duke of Buckingham, and in the republican party of England
as a “Brutus.” To convince his antagonist that he could hack
his own body to avenge himself of an injury, he cut off a piece
of one of his fingers, and inclosed it with a challenge. Felton
was an officer, and, according to Clarendon, “of a gentleman's
family in Suffolk, of good fortune and reputation.” D'Israeli
adds, that the Earl of Arundel was of his blood.
See Hillas, Major.
FERDINAND, King of Spain. Challenge, in 1475, to Alfonso,
King of Portugal. Ferdinand sent a herald to defy Alfonso to
a fair field of fight with his whole army, or, if he declined this,
to invite him to decide their differences by personal combat.
Alfonso accepted the challenge ; “but a dispute arising
about a guaranty for the performance of the engagements on
either side, the whole affair evaporated, as usual, in an empt
vaunt of chivalry.” \
FENTON,
FERIL, or FENIL, Count. An Italian nobleman in a French
regiment, who was banished from France for killing his enemy
in a duel. His name is mentioned in 1686, in connection with
a plot to seize the Prince of Orange, subsequently William III.
of England.
FIELDING, Challenge, in 1696, to Sir Henry Dutton
Colt. Sir Henry was a justice of the peace, and gave offence
to the challenger in the execution of the duties of his office.
A proclamation was issued against Mr. Fielding, and a reward of
£200 offered for his apprehension.
FINCH, WILLIAM B. See White, F. B.
FITzGIBBON, JoHN (subsequently Lord Clare). See Curran,
John Philpot. ~
FITZHUGH, E. C. See Gwin, William M.
FITZPATRICK, General. See Foa, Charles James. . . .
FITzwill IAM, Earl of and MR. BERESFORD. In England,
1795. The quarrel arose about “places and pensions.” Just
*.
176 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
as they had taken their ground, with pistols, at twelve paces, a
magistrate interfered, and prevented further proceedings.
\
FLAMARENs, Mons. See Frettes, La.
FLANT, Doctor. See Irby, F. W.
FLooD, HENRY. See Grattan, Henry, and also Agar, James.
FLORIDA : Constitutional provision : —
“No person shall be capable of holding or of being elected to any
post of honor, profit, trust, or emolument, civil or military, legislative,
executive, or judicial, under the government of this State, who shall
hereafter fight a duel, or send or accept a challenge to fight a duel, the
probable issue of which may be the death of the challenger or chal-
lenged, or who shall be a second to either party, or who shall in any
manner aid or assist in such duel, or shall be knowingly the bearer of
such challenge or acceptance, whether the same occur or be committed
in or out of the State.”
Folsom, Captain. See Russell, A. C.
FoEBEs, , a Scotch officer in the service of France. See
Wilkes, John.
FoED, Roger DU. See Bouvet, Mons. F.
Fox, the Right Honorable CHARLEs JAMEs, and WILLIAM
ADAM, member of Parliament. In England, in 1779. The ac-
counts of the cause of this duel differ. According to Wade, it
arose from some remarks made by Mr. Fox, which were “sup-
posed to be personal’’; — in the British Plutarch, it is said that
Mr. Fox “severely attacked ” Mr. Adam. In a biographical no-
tice of the latter, we find it related, that, at the opening of Par-
liament, Mr. Adam remarked in debate, that, “amongst those
gentlemen who stood candidates for office, he could not single
out one by whom the state was likely to be better served than
by their present rulers”; that the opposition to the ministry
“ had already betrayed their intentions by the abject concessions
they would have made to our revolted subjects in America”;
that he expressed his fear that, should these gentlemen “be
called to office, instead of carrying on the war with spirit and
activity, they would terminate it with a dishonorable and humili-
ating peace”; and that Mr. Fox, in his reply, “commented” upon
these sentiments very “severely.” Horace Walpole's version is,
that “Adam, a Scot, a man of a very suspicious character, had for
two or three years distinguished himself by absurd speeches”;
that, at the time in question, “he uttered a most ridiculous one,
CHALLENGES AND DUELs. 177
in which he said, that, though he had left the house last year pre-
possessed against Administration, yet he had been converted to
them by reading the examinations of the generals, who, he per-
ceived, had been more to blame than the ministers ; that this
rhapsody Fox ridiculed in the highest degree, with infinite wit and
argument; that Adam felt the sarcasm to the quick, and after the
debate asked an explanation; and that Fox told him he meant
no personal invective, and they parted.” In the Continuation of
Hume's England, we have this account: “The ministry, in their
defence against the violent attacks of Opposition, frequently made
use of the argument, that, bad as the ministers were, it was not
certain that the nation would be at all bettered by taking their
opponents. On this Mr. Fox animadverted with so much asper-
ity, that Mr. Adam, who had made use of it in the same debate,
called upon him for an explanation.”
It was supposed that Mr. Adam was satisfied ; but some days
afterwards he wrote Mr. Fox, requiring him to allow the follow-
ing paragraph to be inserted in the newspapers (in reply to an
account of the affair in Parliament which had been published,
much, as Mr. Adams thought, to his injury):—
“We have authority to assure the public, that, in a conversation which
passed between Mr. For and Mr. Adams, in consequence of the debate in
the House of Commons on Thursday last, Mr. Foz declared, that, however
much his speech may have been misinterpreted, he did not mean to throw
any personal reflection on Mr. Adams.” - -
Mr. Fox declined to grant the desired liberty, and said that his
speech, as published, was incorrect and unauthorized by him,
and that Mr. Adam might publish the speech correctly, or the
conversation between them in relation to it, at his pleasure. It
is asserted, further, that Mr. Adam’s “friends,” not content with
this explanation, demanded that Mr. Fox should himself disabuse
the public mind, in the manner proposed; and that, upon his re-
fusal, a challenge followed. ſº
The two statesmen met in Hyde Park. The incidents on the
ground, as stated by Walpole and in the Continuation of Hume,
differ from the account of General Fitzpatrick and Major Hum-
berston, the seconds (as quoted by the editor of Walpole), who
say : — N
“Mr. Adam fired and wounded Mr Fox, which we believe was not at
all perceived by Mr. Adam, and it was not distinctly seen by either of .
ourselves. Mr. Fox fired without effect; we then interfered, asking
Mr. Adam if he was satisfied. Mr. Adam replied, ‘Will Mr. Fox de-
178 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
clare he meant no personal attack upon my character?” Upon which
Mr. Fox said, this was no place for apologies, and desired him to go on.
Mr. Adam fired his second pistol without effect; Mr. Fox fired his re-
maining pistol in the air; and then said, as the affair was ended, he
had no difficulty in declaring that he meant no more personal affront to
Mr. Adam than he did to either of the other gentlemen present. Mr.
Adam replied, ‘Sir, you have behaved like a man of honor.” Mr. Fox
then mentioned that he believed himself wounded; and, upon opening
his waistcoat, it was found it was so, but, to all appearance, slightly.”
Wraxhall, in his Memoirs, remarks, that apprehensions were
entertained for Fox’s life, and that the people surrounded his
lodgings with clamorous demonstrations of anxiety for his safety,
and with angry reproaches against his political and personal foes.
If we credit Walpole, who disliked Mr. Adam, (so much as to
say that “he could not describe him, as he never extracted
malevolence out of the fogs of the Highlands,”) and who may
be allowed, therefore, to speak in his favor, we are to ascribe
this duel to the officious zeal of Mr. Adam’s “friends,” rather
than to any wish of his own ; while we have the authority of
one of the other writers quoted for believing that Mr. Fox, while
on the ground, said that “he had no quarrel ” with the gentle-
man who had called him there. There was, then, no real mis-
understanding between the parties. And what “satisfaction ”
did Mr. Adam receive 2 Precisely what Mr. Fox gave him be-
fore the combat, — an assurance that no “personal affront was
meant.” The truth is, that the malign influence of party spirit
drove Mr. Adam to risk his own life, and to aim at the life of
his eminent adversary, in order to have a victim on one side or
the other. As it was, the ministry were the losers ; and the
slight injury to Mr. Fox increased the public animosity against
them, which, in the words of the historian, “ was already almost
universal.” * - -
Fox and RANDALL. Near Washington, in 1821. The cir-
cumstances, as related by a gentleman who was at Washington
at the time, are as follows.
Randall was a clerk in the Treasury Department. He seduced
the daughter of a lady with whom he boarded. The girl’s broth-
er, a cadet at West Point, and Randall, had a rencounter in con-
sequence, in which the latter was severely wounded. After his
recovery, he was assaulted in the street by a person who, as he
supposed, was set on by a young man named Fox, who was also
a boarder of the lady. To revenge this attack, Randall soon
w
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 179
after gave Fox a caning. Fox then challenged Randall. They
fought at eight paces, with pistols. Fox was killed on the spot.
Randall was dismissed from the public service.
FRANCIS, SIR PHILIP. See Hastings, Warren.
FRANCIS I., King of France. Challenge, in 1527, to CHARLEs.
W., Emperor of Germany. Historians commonly regard this
affair as of great consequence. They suppose that it produced a
change in manners throughout Europe, and gave countenance
or authority to persons of inferior rank, and of all ranks, to
adjust private differences by duel. According to some, indeed,
modern duelling dates from the quarrel between these two mon-
archs. As this opinion has been examined elsewhere in this
volume, the subject may be dismissed here without further re-
mark.
Francis and Charles were rival claimants to the same domin-
ions. War was proclaimed against Charles by both France and
England, early in 1528, by heralds at his own court. The
Emperor, in dismissing the French herald, sent a message to
Francis, reminding him of a conversation at Madrid, before their
alienation, and declaring that henceforth he should consider him
not only as a base violator of public faith, but as having broken
his word, given on the honor of a gentleman. Francis instantly
ordered the herald to return to Charles with a cartel of defiance,
in which he gave the Emperor the lie in form, challenged him
to a duel, and required him to appoint the time, the place, and
the weapons. The challenge was promptly accepted. Several
messages followed, on both sides, relative to the arrangements
for the combat ; but the monarchs never met. The conduct of
Charles on this occasion was not such, probably, as to win the
approbation of duellists; especially if we follow Hume, who
states that he, and not Francis, gave the first challenge. Besides,
the Emperor's course subsequently was quite similar. In a
speech at Rome, before the Pope and Cardinals, he proposed a
duel, in which the magnificent prize to be fought for was the
Duchy of Burgundy on the one part, and the Duchy of Milan on
the other; but on the following day he so far modified his lan-
guage as to lead to the conclusion, that his challenge was a mere
figure of speech, and meant nothing. -
FRETTEs, LA, and CHAsAIs. In France, in 1663. This was
one of the “famous duels” of the time. Eight gentlemen were
engaged in it; namely, two La Frettes, Saint Aignan, and Ar-
180 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
genlieu, on the one side, and Chalois, Noirmoutier, D'Antin, and
Flamarens on the other. I have ascertained no further particu-
lars.
FREEMAN, General, and General SMITH. . In Mississippi, in
1851. The Generals were the candidates of opposite parties for
Congress. Smith was wounded at the “fifth round.” The cause,
as stated in the public prints, was that “Smith wrote a letter to
some of the papers, in which he made injurious statements
against Freeman.”
FRENCH, GEORGE, and SIR EDwARD CRoFTon, Baronet. In
1770. French was slain; he was of the family of French of
French Park, county of Roscommon.
FREYCHAPPEL and Swiegel, gentlemen of the kingdom of
Hanover. In 1750. An affair of jealousy. Both paid assiduous
court to the Countess of Yarmouth, mistress of George II. of
England. Freychappel was killed.
FRosT, John WILLIAM, and THoMAs HUNT. At or near New
Orleans, in 1851, with double-barrelled guns, at forty paces.
Frost was son of the late Dr. William Frost, of Kennebunk,
Maine, and a student of law of the late Andrew Dunlap, of Bos-
ton. Before removing south, he edited a paper in Maine. At
the time of the duel, he was one of the editors of the New Or-
leans Crescent. Hunt was a physician of New Orleans. Frost
fell at the second fire, and died in a few minutes. His “spark-
ling eye and silver tongue rendered him as popular with his
school-fellows,” writes his chum, “as, later in life, he was with
juries and political assemblies.” Q. -
It appears, from several sources, that the fatal meeting arose
from the course pursued by Frost, in regard to a candidate to
represent the second district of Louisiana in Congress. This
district is Whig, having been represented by the Secretary of
War under Mr. Fillmore's administration (Mr. Conrad), and by
Judge Bullard, immediately preceding the year 1851. The can-
vass for a successor to the latter commenced with much acri-
mony and personal feeling. Two gentlemen were presented for
the suffrages of the Whigs, – Colonel T. G. Hunt, and Mr. I. N.
Marks. Frost preferred Marks, and assailed the Colonel and his
brothers in the Crescent. Subsequently, and a few days previ-
ous to the encounter, Frost gave additional offence, in a speech
at a caucus called to select delegates to attend a congressional
convention.
* * * ~ *

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. - 181
The following extracts from three New Orleans papers furnish
all the additional information necessary to an understanding of
the case. The Crescent — its columns in mourning—said:—
“We regret to announce the death of the principal editor of this pa-
per, Mr. John W. Frost, who fell yesterday in a hostile meeting, arising
out of the proceedings at the ‘Shades’ on Monday night last. Mr.
Frost removed, soon after obtaining his professional education, to Geor-
gia, where he married and settled himself in the practice of the law;
but was induced in a few years to remove to Shreveport, in this State,
whence he again changed his domicile, in 1843, to the parish of Concor-
dia; and in 1847 he established himself in this city, where he has since
resided. Since February, 1850, he has been connected with this jour-
nal as its principal editor. >
“His remains will be conveyed to Alexandria, Red River, on the first
steamboat that leaves for that place.”
The Delta of the same date contained particulars of the com-
bat. ~
“Both parties fired, in the first instance, without effect. No proposi-
tion for an amicable arrangement came from the friends of Mr. Frost;
—none, of course, could come from the friends of Dr. Hunt, as he was
the challenged party. The barrels just discharged were reloaded, and
at the second fire, Dr. Hunt's shot took effect; his ball entered at the
right armpit of Mr. Frost, passed through the lungs, and lodged under
the scapular of the left shoulder. He fell, mortally wounded, and in
some ten minutes expired. The body was carried off and placed in a
room of the barracks. * -
“Mr. Frost leaves an amiable orphan daughter, some fourteen years
of age, to mourn a parent's premature death.
The Picayune related incidents which are omitted in its con-
temporaries, and show that the quarrel commenced at the Con-
gressional election the year previous.
“Fatal. Duel.—We lament to announce that the difficulties which have
for some time existed, and with which the public has been made famil-
iar through the press, between Mr. Frost, the editor of the Crescent,
and Colonel T. G. Hunt, one of the candidates for the nomination to
Congress, have had a fatal termination. Mr. Frost fought a duel yes-
terday, at about 1 o'clock, P. M., at the United States Barracks, below
the city, with Dr. Thomas Hunt, the brother of Colonel T. G. Hunt.
They fought, as we hear, with double-barrelled guns, at forty paces, and
on the second fire Mr. Frost was mortally wounded, the bullet passing
through his left breast, and he died within half an hour. Dr. Hunt was
unhurt. - ~,
“The immediate cause of offence was an altercation which took place
at the Whig meeting in Perdido Street, on Monday evening. It was,
however, only the renewal of an ancient difficulty, arising out of the
16
182 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
Congressional election last fall, when Colonel T. G. Hunt was a candi-
date before the Whig Convention, and Judge Bullard, the law partner
of Mr. Frost, obtained the nomination. Another of the brothers of
Colonel Hunt became then involved in a personal difficulty with Mr.
Frost, and the preliminary movements for a duel were made upon the
part of Mr. Frost, but they failed. The ill feeling has rankled ever
since, and the new canvass, in which Colonel Hunt is again a candidate,
revived it, produced the collision at the ‘Shades, and has ended in this
lamentable manner. There was a meeting between the parties on
Wednesday, which the police interrupted, and both challenger and
challenged were bound over. They disregarded the bonds, went almost
directly from the Recorder's office to the United States Barracks, and
finally closed up this most unhappy quarrel with the death of Mr. Frost
by the hands of Dr. Hunt.”
FULLART.on,
Earl of
GACE, Count de. See Richelieu, Louis F. A. de Plessis,
Duc de.
GALEAzzo, a distinguished general of Mantua. He was killed
at the siege of Trecco, in 1406. Two duels in which he was
engaged are found recorded in the account of his feats in arms.
One was fought in France, with a gigantic Englishman, who is
called Robinus Novellus, and who had been victorious in seven
previous combats. The name of the Briton was so terrible, that
no Frenchman dared to accept his challenge; but he was van-
quished by the skill and prowess of Galeazzo, who spared his life
at the intercession of the King of France.
His second encounter was at Pádua, with the Marshal de
Boucicault (as is supposed), in the presence of many noble
Venetians. The judges of the field interfered, and prevented
bloodshed.
GARDINER, Cosmo. See Thomas, Colonel.
, Member of Parliament. See Shelburne,
GARDNER, Cornet. See Hill, Reverend Mr.
GATEs, General HoRATIO. See Wilkinson, General James.
GEOFFREY of Lusignan. Challenge to CoNRAD, in the Holy
Land, during the Crusade, about 1192. Guy of Lusignan, in
full assembly of Crusaders, averred that Conrad had perverted
law, and embezzled treasure. The accused replied, that, in right
of his wife, the Queen Isabella, he was justified in his conduct.
Geoffrey, brother of Guy, rose in fury; called Conrad a perjured
man and traitor, and, defying him, threw a glove at his feet. As,
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 183
by the laws of chivalry, a sovereign was not compelled to accept
a challenge from a vassal, Conrad cast a scornful glance at his
foe, and retired in silence from the assembly.
GERMAIN, LORD GEORGE. See Lutterell, Temple.
GERMAINE, LORD GEORGE, and Governor GEORGE JoHNSTONE.
In England, 1770. The cause, angry words in the House of
Commons. The second of Germaine, the Right Hon. Thomas
Townshend : of Johnstone, Sir James Lowther, Baronet. Each
fired two pistols. At the first fire Johnstone's ball shattered one
of his lordship's weapons in his hand. Both escaped without
1I]]|U|TV. ..
ºmine is better known as Lord George Sackville. John-
stone is connected with our annals as Governor of an American
colony, and as Commissioner of England, with Eden and Lord
Carlisle, to attempt a reconciliation with the Colonies during the
Revolution.
GIBSON, -. See Cocke, Samuel B.
GIBSON, W. E. See Irving, C.
GILBERT, See Barrington, Colonel Jonah.
GILBERT, HoN. Edward, ex-member of Congress, and Gen-
eral I. W. DENVER. In California, 1852. The Rev. M. C.
Willing communicated to the Journal of Commerce the following
Statement : — .
“The legislature of California at its last session passed a bill to pro-
vide for the sending of relief to the overland immigrants, who might be
in a destitute condition or exposed to danger from hostile Indians. This
bill required the Governor, who had made the recommendation to the
legislature, to raise a company and supply trains sufficient to meet the
necessities which might exist during the season. The Governor had
obeyed these instructions, and a short time since marched in front of
this train through Sacramento City, as it was setting out upon this hu-
mane expedition. -
“Mr. Gilbert constantly opposed this whole measure, frankly stating
in his editorials that he believed the movement was designed for the
purpose of making political capital, and that it would be a very heavy
sº. to the State, and render very little aid to the immigrants.
When the press announced the departure of the supply train, and com-
plimented the Governor, who escorted it out of Sacramento, Mr. Gilbert
ridiculed the parade and show that was made about it, and intimated
that this fact proved that the whole thing was got up to increase the
Governor's popularity. Many believe that Mr. Gilbert was entirely
184 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
wrong in his views about this matter, and that pure motives of benevo-
lence prompted the Governor and others.
“General Denver, a member of the State Senate, was connected with
the relief train, and was a personal friend of Governor Bigler, and he
replied to Mr. Gilbert's articles by publishing a card, in which he made
use of some uncourteous language. Mr. Gilbert replied, and General
Denver retorted. A challenge was immediately sent to General Den-
ver, and accepted, and rifles were the weapons selected. Mr. Gilbert
fell at the second shot, and expired in less than five minutes. Mr. Gil-
bert was a native of Albany, New York. He was a member of the
Convention to form the Constitution for the State of California, and,
immediately after her admission into the Union, he was chosen a Repre-
sentative to Congress. He has been the pioneer of the daily press in
California, and his paper was in advance of any west of the Rocky
Mountains. He was only thirty-three years of age.”
GILLESPIE, Captain. See Barrington, William.
GIRARDIN, EMILE DE. See Carrel, Armand.
GIST, . See Fair, -
GLoucestER, Duke of. See Burgundy, Duke of.
GLYNDER, Owen. See Sene, Howell.
GoLIATH, the Philistine, and DAVID, the Hebrew. In the year
B. C. 1063. Some persons will smile to find a Scripture story
in a work of this description. But the contest between the giant
of Gath and the son of Jesse was a duel in every sense, and is
therefore rightly here.
Goliath uttered, (as recorded in Samuel,) “I defy the armies
of Israel this day: give me a man, that we may fight together.”
This was the challenge. According to Josephus, the Philistine
offered single combat to save the effusion of blood; proclaiming
to Saul and the Hebrews that there was no necessity for a battle
between the two armies, inasmuch as the conqueror in the duel
which he proposed “should have the reward of the conqueror,
and determine the war.” “And certainly,” concluded Goliath,
“it is much better, and more prudent, to gain what you desire
by the hazard of one man than of all.”
Perhaps the motives of David, in accepting the cartel, were not
entirely patriotic or disinterested. The account in Samuel shows
that he was particular in his inquiries as to the reward, and
asked more than once about Saul’s offer of his daughter in mar-
riage, and a sum of money, to whoever should slay the vaunting
hero who, day after day, presented himself in defiance before
the camp of Israel. -
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 185
Goliath, says Josephus, felt insulted at the weapons selected
by the shepherd-boy, as being those used in driving away and
avoiding dogs, rather than those employed in combat between
man and man, and so the Philistine demanded : “ Dost thou take
me not for a man, but a dog P” To which David answered:
“No, not for a dog, but for a creature worse than a dog.” The
giant, very angry, “cursed him by the name of God,” and
threatened to give his flesh to beasts and birds. The duel com-
menced. A stone from the stripling's bag, hurled from his sling,
struck the mighty one of Gath in his forehead, - fractured his
skull, and brought him to the ground. “So David ran and stood
upon his adversary, as he lay down, and cut off his head with
his own sword ; for he had no sword himself.”
David won the princess; but her father was disinclined to
fulfil his promise, and proposed new conditions. David’s reply
tells the secret of his heart: “Seemeth it to you a light thing,”
he said, “to be made the king's son-in-law 2 It does not seem
so to me; especially when I am one of a family that is low, and
without any glory or honor.” The lowly born son of Jesse,
and Michal, daughter of the monarch of Israel, became one in
marriage. The path to “glory” and to “honor” was now
open to the ambitious youth. In due time he wore the royal
purple.
GANAHT, CHARLEs, and THoMAs DANIELs. In Georgia, 1852.
Two shots were fired, without injury to either.
GontAUT, CHARLEs DE, Duke of Biron. See Clarency,
Prince of. •
GonzALIER, knight substitute, or champion of Ramiro, king
of Aragon. See Bivar, Don Rodrigo.
Gordon, Colonel. See Illo, Colonel.
GourgAUD, Baron de, Adjutant-General of Napoleon, and
Count SEGUR. In 1825. The offence, a reply of Gourgaud to
Segur's work on the Campaign of the Emperor in Russia.
Gower, WILLIAM, and Major ONEBY. In London, in 1725.
They met in a tavern, Drury Lane. Gower was killed unfairly.
Oneby was tried for murder, convicted, and sentenced for exe-
cution, but committed suicide. Gower was of the family of that
name, in the county of Stafford, and in right of his mother lord
of Weston Coyney. 16- - • * .
186 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
GRADY, HENRY. An Irish lawyer of the last century, who,
says Phillips, “wounded every man whom he fought.”
GRADY, HENRY DEANE, “counsel to the revenue,” Ireland.
He fought several times; “all hits.”
GRAFTon, Duke of. See Pomfret, Earl of
GRAHAM, W. G., and MR. BARTON. At Hoboken, New Jersey,
in 1827. Graham was associate editor of the New York
Courier and Inquirer, and was slain. He admitted that he was
in the wrong. “By giving Mr. Barton “a blow,’” said he,
“I have forced him into the condition of a challenger; and that by
not doing what he has, he would have blasted his character as a gen- .
tleman, for ever. In common justice, I am bound thus to absolve him
from all suspicion of unbecoming conduct respecting the challenge.
The provocation, though slight, was still a provocation, which I could
not overlook. It is out of the question for me to explain, retract, or
apologize. . . . . Mr. Barton is a talking man, who dwells very com-
placently on his own skill as a marksman, on his experience as a duellist,
and on his accuracy as a person of ton. I pretend to none of these, and
therefore must oppose the most inflexible obstinacy. After he is per-
fectly satisfied, I may, perhaps, apologize, – that is, in case I am fatally
wounded. It is needless for me to say, I heartily protest and despise
this absurd mode of settling disputes, and salving the wounds of honor.
But what can a poor devil do, except bow to the Supremacy of cus-
tom 2 ° -
Comment is unnecessary. Graham, conscious to himself that
he was in fault, would not confess it, because he feared disgrace,
and obeyed a custom which he “despised,” and against which
he “protested ” in the last hours of life How many cases like
this are recorded in this volume !
GRAHAM, W. H., and F. LEMON. In California, 1851. Sev.
en shots exchanged with revolvers. Lemon wounded in the
shoulder.
GRATTAN, HENRY. His affairs with Henry Flood, and with
Isaac Corry are related with effect in Curran and his Contem-
poraries. . -
- The first, with Flood, in 1783. In a debate in the Irish Par-
liament, on motion of Sir Henry Cavendish, recommending
“retrenchment,” after the two members had uttered warm
words, each of the other, Grattan addressed his antagonist in the
most violent terms at his command, and concluded thus. ſº I
will stop him in his career,” said he, “and tell him, that “he is
CHALLENGES AND DUELS, 187
mistaken if he thinks his talents are as great as his life is infa-
mous.’” -
“We have seen you,” he continued, “we have seen you a violent
opposer of government, and afterward on the most trying questions
silent, — silent for years, – and silenced by money; we have seen you
haunting this house like a guilty spirit, watching the moment when you
should vanish from the question; or you might be descried hovering
about this dome, like an ill-omened bird of night, with sepulchral note,
cadaverous aspect, and a broken beak, watching to stop and pounce
upon your prey; or we have detected you hid behind that chair to
avoid a division, or feigning infirmities to excuse your absence. Influ-
enced by place, or stung by disappointed ambition, we have seen you
pursue a course of manifest duplicity. You can be trusted by no man:
the crown cannot trust you; the people cannot trust you : you have
dealt out the most impartial treachery to both, and now you tell the
nation she was ruined by others, when she was sold by you.”
This was, indeed, terrible invective. But his closing epi-
thets were still more dreadful.
“You fled,” said Grattan, “you fled from the Mutiny Bill, -you fled
'from the Sugar Bill,—you fled from the Six Months’ Money Bill : I
therefore tell you, in the face of your country, before all the world, and
to your beard, you are not an honest man.” T
The two statesmen retired from the House, Mr. Flood,
though arrested, escaped. A hostile meeting was appointed.
But a judicial warrant put an end to the arrangement.
The quarrel with Corry was several years afterwards. That,
like the other, was in the Irish Parliament. Grattan had just
been returned for Wicklow, and entered the House sick, trem-
bling, attenuated, and supported by friends.
“It was solemn midnight, in the very height of feverish excitement;
the question was one of life or death to Ireland,- a question whether
she was to dwindle into a province, or retain her name among the
nations [the bill for union with England in the year 1800]. The passions
of the assembly were mastering its reason: burst after burst, inspired
by such a theme, was more and more inflaming them, when the wild
cheer and almost frenzied acclamation were hushed as if by magic,
—and a spectacle was seen which was not seen without tears. Grat-
tan had watched by the cradle of Irish independence,—there he was,
faithful to the last, gasping for breath, as if about to die for it. He
spoke from his seat, — he was too feeble to stand, – his voice was
weak, his utterance impeded; but as he warmed with his mighty sub-
ject, the recollection of his youthful toils and youthful triumphs revived
his spirit, and he grew young again; t -
Corry, in the course of a speech in this memorable debate,

188 CHALLENGES AND DUELs.
made a deliberate attempt to crush the great orator, and among
other things declared, that, instead of enjoying the confidence
of the people of Ireland, he ought to be standing at the bar of
his country, - at the bar of her criminal tribunals, to answer for
his treasons. Grattan replied. At the close of his remarks he
uttered, The gentleman
“In Parliament has calumniated me to-night; in the King's courts he
will calumniate me to-morrow ; but had he said, or dared to insinuate,
one half as much elsewhere, the indignant spirit of an honest man
would have answered the vile and venal slanderer with a blow.”
A duel was inevitable. The parties went instantly from the
House to the field, and fought by twilight. In the dimness,
Grattan said, “The gentleman is placed too far off; — I cannot
see him plainly ; — let him come nearer.” Corry was wounded
in the arm.
GRAVES, WILLIAM J., member of Congress from Kentucky.
See Cilley, Jonathan. º *.
Gray, John T. See Pope, Henry C.
GRAY, WILLIAM, and the Earl of SouTHESK. In England,
1660. Gray was slain ; he was a son of Sir William Gray, of
the lineage of the ducal families of Suffolk and Kent.
GRAYSON, , and Lieutenant SPARLING. In England.
Sparling refused to marry a niece of Grayson to whom he was
engaged. Grayson thereupon threatened to chastise the delin-
quent, “as a villain and a scoundrel.” Grayson was slain.
Sparling was tried for murder, and acquitted. -
GREEN, Doctor. See Hester, Hon. D.
GREENE, General NATHANIEL, of the army of the Revolution.
See Gunn, Captain.
GRENVILLE, GEORGE, and Lord HENRY PAULET. In 1765.
Paulet told Grenville, in Parliament, “that, if Lord Cobham was
to rise from the dead, he would, if he could be ashamed of any-
thing, be ashamed of him.” &
“Grenville rose in a rage, like a basket-woman,” says Walpole,
and told Lord Harry, that, “if he chose to use such language,
he knew where to find him.” “Did you ever hear of a prime
minister,” continues the brilliant letter-writer, “challenging an
opponent, when he could not answer him 2 Poor Lord Harry,
too, was an unfortunate subject to exercise his valor upon.”
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 189
GREY, -, Captain in the British army, and Lord LEMPSTER.
In England, in 1752, with swords. The quarrel was about a
gaming debt. Grey was killed. Lord Lempster was tried at the
Old Bailey, and found guilty of manslaughter. He became
Earl of Pomfret, and was the second nobleman of that title.
When, in 1765, Lord Byron was tried by his peers, for killing
Mr. Chaworth in a duel, the Earl was absent.
GREY, Lord of Wilton. See Southampton, Earl of
GRIFFITH AP GRoNw, and Howell, AP Rys. A servant of
Griffith went to fish, and was beaten by Howell. Griffith took
up the matter, and challenged Howell to combat. Howell re-
fused to fight. Thereupon Griffith assembled his friends and
retainers, assaulted Howell in his own house, and burned some
of his outbuildings; and while thus employed, was shot dead on
the spot.
GRIFFITH, THOMAS AP. In the wars between the houses of
Lancaster and York. Antagonist unknown. Griffith was slain.
One of his sons was ancestor of Lord Dynevor; his second
wife, a granddaughter of Philip, Duke of Burgundy.
GRILLI, ANDREA, Doge of Venice. See Brunswick, Henry,
Duke of.
GRoNARD, Colonel. See Jones, Major.
GUBION, RALPH, Prior of Tinmouth. In England. A judi-
cial combat. One Simon claimed a right to the maintenance of
two persons in the Priory, which Gubion denied. The dispute
was carried before the Abbot of St. Albans and his court baron,
who ordered it to be tried by combat. Gubion appeared on the
day appointed, attended by his champion, a man of gigantic
stature. The champion was defeated. Gubion consequently
lost his case, and, deeply mortified, immediately resigned his
office.
GUELDERLAND, ARNOLD, Duke of, and his son ADOLPHUs.
About the year 1470. Adolphus asserted, that the Duke had
reigned long enough, and designed to dethrone him. The Duke,
challenged his son to single combat. The unnatural youth ac-
cepted the defiance; but the Duke of Burgundy prevented the
duel.
GUISE, Duke of. See Upton, Sir Henry.
190 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
N.
GUMLEY, Colonel. See Braddock, General Edward.
GUNN, Captain, of Georgia. Challenge, in 1785, to General
Nathaniel Greene. Gunn, during Greene's services at the South,
in the Revolution, had exchanged a public horse with a brother
officer, and, by the General's order, had been tried for the of.
fence, and compelled to make restitution. Upon this circum-
stance, Gunn, on Greene's removal to Georgia, based his demand
for satisfaction, and by the hand of Colonel Jackson gave a
formal challenge. Jackson, on ascertaining the merits of the
case, withdrew. Gunn found a new friend in Major Fishbourne,
and renewed his cartel. Greene, having refused the first, de-
clined to notice the second in any way ; and thereupon Gunn
threatened a personal assault. Greene's reply was that he al-
ways wore his pistols. They never met. The General, under
apprehension that his conduct might be misinterpreted by his
brother officers, gave Washington a full history of the affair, and
asked his opinion.
“If,” said Greene, “I thought my honor or reputation would suffer
in the opinion of the world, and more especially with the military gentle-
men, I value life too little to hesitate a moment to accept the challenge.”
The Commander-in-chief wrote, in answer: —
“I give it as my decided opinion, that your honor and reputation will
stand, not only perfectly acquitted for the non-acceptance of his
(Gunn's) challenge, but that your prudence and judgment would have
been condemned by accepting it; because, if a commanding officer is
amenable to private calls for the discharge of his public duty, he has a
dagger always at his heart; and can turn neither to the right hand nor
to the left, without meeting its point. In a word, he is no longer a free
agent in office, as there are few military decisions which are not offen-
sive to one party or another.” . -
This instance of the force of public sentiment is of great
value. The affair with Gunn evidently gave the General much
disquiet. His courage had never been doubted. But he dared
not act definitely and finally without the assurance of the most
illustrious man in history, that his “honor,” his “reputation,”
would not suffer by disregarding the call. No wonder that per-
sons in the common walks of life yield against their convictions,
in cases of aggravated injury, when a gentleman of Greene's
lofty character and standing, in every sense, hesitated whether
to meet an inferior officer, under the circumstances here re-
lated. - *
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 191
GUSTAvus II., or GUSTAVUs ADoIPHUs, King of Sweden, and
Colonel SEATON. The King offended the Colonel, who, a Scotch-
man, was in his service. The Scot departed the kingdom. The
King followed, and as he overtook him exclaimed, “Dismount,
sir! I acknowledge that I have injured you, and I have come
to give you the satisfaction of a gentleman ; for we are now
without my dominions, and Gustavus and you are equal l’”
This was noble ; but how much more noble, had the monarch
confessed his fault within his dominions, and in the presence of
those who were acquainted with the insult to his officer
Gwin, WILLIAM M., and J. W. McCoRKLE. In California,
1853. The former, a Senator, the latter a Representative, in
the Congress of the United States. Among the friends who at-
tended them on the ground were Mr. Marshall, a member, and
Mr. Inge, an ex-member, of Congress. The parties agreed to
meet near the line of the counties of San Francisco and Santa
Clara, but, apprehending interference, repaired to another place.
The weapon, the rifle, at thirty paces, the combatants to wheel
at the word, and fire. A number of spectators were present.
The friends of the two gentlemen relate the sequel in the follow-
ing card.
“After an exchange of three ineffectual shots, between the Hon.
William M. Gwin and Hon. J. W. McCorkle, the friends of the respec-
tive parties having discovered that their principals were fighting under
a misapprehension of facts, mutually explained to their respective prin-
cipals in what the misapprehension consisted; whereupon Dr. Gwin
romptly denied the cause of provocation referred to in Mr. McCorkle's
i. of the 29th of May, and Mr. McCorkle withdrew his offensive
language uttered on the race-course, and expressed regret at having
used it.
(Signed,) S. W. INGE,
F. STUART,
E. C. MARSHALL,
E. C. FITZHUGH,
* t GEO. P. Johnson,
“June 1st, 1853. - A. P. CRITTENDEN.”
GwinneTT, BUTTON, and LACKLAND McINTosh. In 1777.
Gwinnett, a member of Congress, and a signer of the Decla-
ration of Independence; his antagonist, an officer in the army
of the Revolution. They met, with pistols, at twelve feet. Both
were wounded; Gwinnett mortally. The cause, personal enmity
and rivalry. They were competitors for the office of Brigadier-
192 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
General. McIntosh was successful. Subsequently, Gwinnett
failed to be elected Governor of Georgia, at which McIntosh
exulted, and indulged in remarks which produced a challenge.
GRyMEs, WYNDHAM, and MR. TERRELL. In Virginia, 1803.
Grymes was the challenger. Terrell declared on the ground
that he appeared there without enmity, and should fire with re-
luctance. Grymes was slain; in his last moments he exonerated
his adversary from all blame, said the meeting was of his own
seeking entirely, and expressed the hope that Terrell would not
be molested.
HALL, JANE, and CATHERINE HURLEY. In Buffalo, 1853. A
newspaper of that city states that
“Officer Harris ascertained to-day that a girl named Jane Hall, who
had come from Rochester for the purpose, and Catherine Hurley, were
to have a regular duel, having chosen seconds, and repaired to the toll-
bridge, on Ohio Street, for the engagement. A large crowd assembled
to witness the scene. As soon as possible, Harris was on the spot, and
took the belligerents to the watch-house to await the attention of Justice
Wanderpool.” -
HALL, See Leckie, Robert.
HAMILTON, the Duke of, and Lord MoHUN. In Hyde Park,
in 1713. This was a duel in which, as in France, the seconds
engaged as well as the principals. Lord Mohun gave the chal-
lenge. The parties met on Sunday morning, November 15th,
with swords. His Grace was accompanied by his kinsman,
Colonel Hamilton ; his Lordship by Lieutenant-General Macart-
ney. Mohun was killed on the spot. The Duke died of his
wounds, as his servants were carrying him from the field to his
coach. Colonel Hamilton was wounded by Macartney, and sur-
rendered himself in a few days. Macartney fled in disguise to
the Continent, but finally returned to England, was tried for mur-
der, and convicted of manslaughter. -
It may not be possible to state the cause of this combat with
entire accuracy. The two noblemen married ladies of the same
family, and in the course of some proceedings in chancery rela-
tive to property to which their wives were co-heiresses, they
quarrelled furiously. They differed also in politics. The Duke
had just been appointed Ambassador to the Court of France, and
was supposed to be deeply pledged to Queen Anne's plan
for the restoration of her brother; while Mohun was in the coun-
sels of the opposition. The Duke was regarded as the main
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 193
*
pillar of the cause of the Stuarts; and in his fall, the Whigs,
as is affirmed, saw the ruin of the hopes of that house to be
certain. The family quarrel between him and Mohun furnished
a pretence for a duel; and his Lordship was purposely excited
and irritated by his party, in order to bring about a hostile meet-
Ing. 4 - -
The common account is, too, that his Grace was unfairly slain ;
and upon the testimony of his second before the Privy Council,
the accusation is well sustained ; for Colonel Hamilton declared
upon his oath, that, seeing the Duke fall, he ran to his aid, when
Macartney, who had been disarmed, seized a sword which was
on the ground, and stabbed him over the Colonel's shoulder.
To confirm this statement, a surgeon who examined the Duke's
death-wound expressed the opinion that it could not have been
inflicted by Lord Mohun.
Whatever the truth, the dispute as to the origin of the duel,
and the manner of the Duke's death, entered into the politics of
the time. The Tories, on the one hand, treated Macartney as a
cowardly assassin ; and affirmed that the Whigs had posted other
assassins all round the Park, to murder the Duke, in case he had
slain Mohun, and escaped the treachery of Macartney. The
Whigs, on the contrary, asserted that the combat was the result
of a private difference ; and they not only acquitted Macartney,
but contended that Colonel Hamilton's evidence was false, and
was contradicted by the declarations of several persons who saw
the duel at a distance.
HAMILTON, Colonel. See Hamilton, Duke of
HAMILTON, General ALEXANDER, and AARON BURR, Vice-
President of the United States. In New Jersey, at a place
called Weahawk, July, 1804. This is the most memorable duel
in our annals; and the material facts connected with it, as found
principally in Coleman’s Collection, will be related with some
minuteness, and, as is hoped, with accuracy. First in order,
perhaps, is the correspondence which preceded the fatal meet-
1I] OF.
on the 18th of June, 1804, Colonel Burr addressed General
Hamilton thus : — -
“SIR,--I send for your perusal a letter signed Charles D. Cooper,
which, though apparently published some time ago, has but very
recently come to my knowledge. Mr. Van Ness, who does me the
17 *- -
| | | . . .
194 CHALLENGES AND DUE L S.
favor to deliver this, will point out to you that clause of the letter to
which I particularly request your attention.
“You must perceive, sir, the necessity of a prompt and unqualified
acknowledgment or denial of the use of any expression which would
warrant the assertions of Dr. Cooper.”
Hamilton's reply bears date June 20th : —
“SIR, -I have maturely reflected on the subject of your letter of
the 18th instant, and the more I have reflected, the more I have become
convinced, that I could not, without manifest impropriety, make the
avowal or disavowal which you seem to think necessary. The clause
pointed out by Mr. Van Ness is in these terms: ‘I could detail to you
a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed
of Mr. Burr.’ To endeavor to discover the meaning of this declaration,
I was obliged to seek in the antecedent part of this letter for the opin-
ion to which it referred, as having been already disclosed. I found it
in these words: “General Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared in
substance, that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and
one who ought not to be trusted with the reigns of government.’
“The language of Dr. Cooper plainly implies, that he considered this
opinion of you which he attributes to me as a despicable one; but he
affirms that I have expressed some other, more despicable, without, how-
ever, mentioning to whom, when, or where. 'T is evident that the
phrase, “still more despicable,’ admits of infinite shades, from very light
to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended ? or how
shall I annex any precise idea to language so indefinite 2
“Between gentlemen, despicable and more despicable are not worth
the pains of distinction : when, therefore, you do not interrogate me
as to the opinion which is specifically ascribed to me, I must conclude,
that you view it as within the limits to which the animadversions of
political opponents upon each other may justifiably extend, and conse-
quently as not warranting the idea of it which Dr. Cooper, appears to
entertain. If so, what precise inference could you draw, as a guide for
your conduct, were I to acknowledge that I had expressed an opinion
of you still more despicable than the one which is particularized ? How
could you be sure that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds
which you would yourself deem admissible between political oppo-
nents 2 - *
“But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment to which the
requisition you have made naturally leads. The occasion forbids a
more ample illustration, though nothing could be more easy than to
pursue it. -
“Repeating that I cannot reconcile it with propriety to make the
acknowledgment or denial you desire, I will add, that I deem it inad-
missible on principle to consent to be interrogated as to the justness of
the inferences which may be drawn by others #. whatever I may have
said of a political opponent, in the course of fifteen years' competition.
If there were no other objection to it this is sufficient, that it would

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 195
tend to expose my sincerity and delicacy to injurious imputations from
every person who may at any time have conceived the import of my
expressions differently from what I may then have intended, or may
afterwards recollect. I stand ready to avow or disavow, promptly and
explicitly, any precise or definite opinion which I may be charged with
having declared of any gentleman. More than this cannot fitly be ex-
}. from me ; and especially it cannot be reasonably expected that
shall enter into an explanation upon a basis so vague as that which
you have adopted. I trust on more reflection you will see the matter
in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstance
and must abide the consequences. :
“The publication of Dr. Cooper was never seen by me till after the
receipt of your letter.” w
Burr rejoined on the 21st : —
“SIR,-Your letter of the 20th instant has been this day received.
Having considered it attentively, I regret to find in it nothing of that
sincerity and delicacy which you profess to value.
“Political opposition can never absolve gentlemen from the necessity
of a rigid adherence to the laws of honor and the rules of decorum. I
neither claim such privilege nor indulge it in others.
“The common sense of mankind affixes to the epithet adopted by
Dr. Cooper the idea of dishonor. It has been publicly applied to me
under the sanction of your name. The question is not, whether he
has understood the meaning of the word, or has used it according to
syntax, and with grammatical accuracy; but, whether you have author-
ized this application, either directly or by uttering expressions or opin-
ions derogatory to my honor. The time ‘when’ is in your own knowl-
edge, but no way material to me, as the calumny has now first been
disclosed, so as to become the subject of my notice, and as the effect is
present and palpable. -
“Your letter has furnished me with new reasons for requiring a defi-
nite reply.”
This letter was answered by Hamilton on the 22d : —
“SIR,-Your first letter, in a style too peremptory, made a demand,
in my opinion, unprecedented and unwarrantable. My answer, point-
ing out the embarrassment, gave you an opportunity to take a less ex-
ceptionable course. You have not chosen to do it ; but by your last
letter received this day, containing expressions indecorous and improper,
you have increased the difficulties to explanation intrinsically incident to
the nature of your application. -
“If by a “definite reply' you mean the direct avowal or disavowal
required in your first letter, I have no other answer to give, than that
which has already been given. If you mean anything different, ad-
mitting of greater latitude, it is requisite you should explain.” … -
These four letters embrace, it is believed, the whole of the
196 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
direct communications between the principals. The affair seems
to have been submitted to friends at the earliest moment. Burr's
two letters were delivered by W. P. Van Ness. Hamilton con-
sulted Nathaniel Pendleton as soon as the 22d of June, at which
time he informed him, that he had told Mr. Van Ness that he
considered Burr's second communication “rude and offensive,”
and that, unless it were recalled, the only answer which it
was possible for him to make was, that “Mr. Burr must take
such steps as he might think proper”; and at parting Mr. Pen-
dleton was intrusted with the General’s letter of the 22d of June,
which, in consequence of several conversations between Messrs.
Van Ness and Pendleton, remained in the possession of the lat-
ter until the 25th, when, as we shall find, all hope of an adjust-
ment of the difficulty was at an end. Meantime, Mr. Van Ness
had addressed a note to General Hamilton, in which he stated
that he had reported to Colonel Burr the result of their last in-
terview, and in which he asked “when and where it would be
most convenient to receive a communication.”
It will be seen, therefore, that Colonel Burr resolved upon ex-
treme measures before the General’s letter of the 22d of June
was delivered to him. It is important to remark, also, that, prior
to parting with that letter, Mr. Pendleton read to Mr. Van Ness
the following paper, as containing what General Hamilton was
willing to concede : —
“General Hamilton says he cannot imagine to what Dr. Cooper may
have alluded, unless it were to a conversation at Mr. Taylor's in Albany,
last winter (at which he and General Hamilton were present). Gen-
eral Hamilton cannot recollect distinctly the particulars of that con-
versation so as to undertake to repeat them, without running the risk of
varying or omitting what might be deemed important circumstances.
The expressions are entirely forgotten, and the specific ideas imper-
fectly remembered; but to the best of his recollection it consisted of
comments on the political principles and views of Colonel Burr, and
the results that might be expected from them in the event of his elec-
tion as Governor, without reference to any particular instance of past
conduct, or to private character.”
Again, after the delivery of General Hamilton's letter of June
22d, Mr. Pendleton gave Mr. Van Ness another paper, dictated
in the same conciliatory spirit: — - .
“In answer to a letter properly adapted to obtain from General
Hamilton a declaration whether he had charged Colonel Burr with an
particular instance of dishonorable conduct, or had impeached his pri-
vate character, either in the conversation alluded to by Dr. Cooper, or
*
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 197
in any other particular instance to be specified, he would be able to
answer consistently with his honor, and the truth, in substance, that
the conversation to which Dr. Cooper alluded turned wholly on polit-
ical topics, and did not attribute to Colonel Burr any instance of dis-
honorable conduct, nor relate to his private character; and in relation
to any other language or conversation of General Hamilton which
Colonel Burr will specify, a prompt and frank avowal or denial will be
given.”
A correspondence now ensued between Messrs. Van Ness and
Pendleton. On the 26th of June, the former wrote : —
“SIR,-The letter which you yesterday delivered me, and your sub-
sequent communication, in Colonel Burr's opinion, evince no dispo-
sition on the part of General Hamilton to come to a satisfactory accom-
modation. The injury complained of and the reparation expected are
so definitely expressed in Colonel Burr's letter of the 21st instant, that
there is not perceived a necessity for further explanation on his part.
The difficulty that would result from confining the inquiry to any par-
ticular times and occasions must be manifest. The denial of a specified
conversation only would leave strong implications that on other occa-
sions improper language had been used. When and where injurious
opinions and expressions have been uttered by General Hamilton must
be best known to him, and of him only will Colonel Burr inquire. No
denial or declaration will be satisfactory, unless it be general, so as to wholly
exclude the idea that rumors derogatory to Colonel Burr's honor have
originated with General Hamilton, or have been fairly inferred from any-
thing he has said. A definite reply to a requisition of this nature was
demanded by Colonel Burr's letter on the 21st instant. This being
refused, invites the alternative alluded to in General Hamilton's letter
of the 20th. s
“It was required by the position in which the controversy was placed
by General Hamilton, on Friday (June 22d) last, and I was immediately
furnished with a communication demanding a personal interview. The
necessity of this measure has not, in the opinion of Colonel Burr, been
diminished by the General's last letter, or any communication which
has since been received. I am consequently again instructed to deliv-
er you a message, as soon as it may be convenient for you to receive
it. I beg therefore you will be so good as to inform me at what hour
I can have the pleasure of seeing you.”
Mr. Pendleton replied the same day : —
“SIR,--I have communicated the letter which you did me the honor
to write to me, of this date, to General Hamilton. The expectations
now disclosed on the part of Colonel Burr appear to him to have
greatly extended the original ground of inquiry, and, instead of pre-
senting a particular and definite case for explanation, seem to aim at
nothing less than an inquisition into his most confidential conversations,
\
17 *
198 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
as well as others, through the whole period of his acquaintance with
Colonel Burr.
“While he was prepared to meet the particular case fairly and fully,
he thinks it inadmissible that he should be expected to answer at large
as to everything that he may possibly have said, in relation to the char-
acter of Colonel Burr, at any time or upon any occasion. Though he is
not conscious that any charges which are in circulation to the prejudice
of Colonel Burr have originated with him, -except one which may have
been so considered, and which has long since been fully explained be-
tween Colonel Burr and himself, - yet he cannot consent to be ques- '
tioned generally as to any rumors which may be afloat derogatory to
the character of Colonel Burr, without specification of the several
rumors, many of them probably unknown to him. He does not, how-
ever, mean to authorize any conclusion as to the real nature of his con-
duct in relation to Colonel Burr, by his declining so loose and vague a
basis of explanation, and he disavows an unwillingness to come to a
satisfactory, provided it be an honorable, accommodation. His objec-
tion is, the very indefinite ground which Colonel Burr has assumed, in
which he is sorry to be able to discern nothing short of predetermined
hostility. Presuming, therefore, that it will be adhered to, he has in-
structed me to receive the message which you have it in charge to de-
liver. For this purpose I shall be at home and at your command to-
morrow morning from eight to ten o’clock.”
The final letter was from Mr. Van Ness, and dated June
27th : —
“SIR,--The letter which I had the honor to receive from you, under-
date of yesterday, states, among other things, that, in General Hamil-
ton's opinion, Colonel Burr has taken a very indefinite ground, in which
he evinces nothing short of predetermined hostility, and that General
Hamilton thinks it inadmissible that the inquiry should extend to his
confidential as well as other conversations. In this Colonel Burr can
only reply, that secret whispers traducing his fame, and impeaching his
honor, are at least equally injurious with slanders publicly uttered;
that General Hamilton had, at no time, and in no place, a right to use
any such injurious expressions; and that the partial negative he is dis-
posed to give, with the reservations he wishes to make, are proofs that
he has done the injury specified.
“Colonel Burr's request was, in the first instance, proposed in a form
the most simple, in order that General Hamilton might give to the affair
that course to which he might be induced by his temper and his knowl-
edge of facts. Colonel Burr trusted with confidence, that, from the frank-
ness of a soldier and the candor of a gentleman, he might expect an
ingenuous declaration. That if, as he had reason to believe, General
Hamilton had used expressions derogatory to his honor, he would have
had the magnanimity to retract them; and that if, from his language, in-
jurious inferences had been improperly drawn, he would have perceived
the propriety of correcting errors, which might thus have been widely
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 199
diffused. With these impressions, Colonel Burr was greatly surprised
at receiving a letter which he considered as evasive, and which in man-
ner he deemed not altogether decorous. In one expectation, however,
he was not wholly deceived, for the close of General Hamilton's letter
contained an intimation that, if Colonel Burr should dislike his refusal
to acknowledge or deny, he was ready to meet the consequences. This
Colonel Burr deemed a sort of defiance, and would have felt justified
in making it the basis of an immediate message. But as the communi-
cation contained something concerning the indefiniteness of the request,
as he believed it rather the offspring of false pride than of reflection,
and as he felt the utmost reluctance to proceed to extremities, while
any other hope remained, his request was repeated in terms more
explicit. The replies and propositions on the part of General Hamilton
have, in Colonel Burr's opinion, been constantly in substance the same.
“Colonel Burr disavows all motives of predetermined hostility, a
charge by which he thinks insult added to injury. He feels as a gen-
tleman should feel when his honor is impeached or assailed; and
without sensations of hostility or wishes of revenge, he is determined to
vindicate that honor at such hazard as the nature of the case demands.
“The length to which this correspondence has extended only tend-
ing to prove that the satisfactory redress, earnestly desired, cannot be
obtained, he deems it useless to offer any proposition except the simple
message which I shall now have the honor to deliver.”
A formal challenge accompanied the last letter of Mr. Van
Ness, which Mr. Pendleton, in behalf of his principal, accepted.
General Hamilton was still disposed to an accommodation ; and
impressed with the conviction that a contingency might occur,
even then, in which an overture on his part would be proper, he
submitted to the discretion of his friend the “Remarks” upon
the letter of Mr. Van Ness of June 27th which follow : —
“Whether the observations on this letter are designed merely to jus-
tify the result which is indicated in the close of the letter, or may be
intended to give an opening for rendering anything explicit which may
have been deemed vague heretofore, can only be judged of by the
sequel. At any rate it appears to me necessary not to be misunder-
stood. Mr. Pendleton is therefore authorized to say, that in the
course of the present discussion, written or verbal, there has been no
intention to evade, defy, or insult, but a sincere disposition to avoid
extremities if it could be done with propriety. With this view General
Hamilton has been ready to enter into a frank and free explanation on
any and every object of a specific nature; but not to answer a general
and abstract inquiry, embracing a period too long for any accurate
recollection, and exposing him to unpleasant criticisms from, or unpleas-
ant discussions with, any and every person who may have understood
him in an unfavorable sense. This (admitting that he could answer in
a manner the most satisfactory to Colonel Burr) he should deem inad-
200 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
missible, in principle and precedent, and humiliating in practice. To
this therefore he can never submit. Frequent allusion has been made
to slanders said to be in circulation. Whether they are openly or in
whispers, they have a form and shape, and might be specified.
“If the alternative alluded to in the close of the letter is definitively
tendered, it must be accepted ; the time, place, and manner to be af.
terwards regulated. I should not think it right in the midst of a Cir-
cuit Court to withdraw my services from those who may have confided
important interests to me, and expose them to the embarrassment of
seeking other counsel, who may not have time to be sufficiently instruct-
ed in their causes. I shall also want a little time to make some arrange-
ments respecting my own affairs.” . -
This paper of “Remarks,” in General Hamilton's own hand-
writing, was offered to Mr. Van Ness, but he declined to receive
it, on the ground, “that he considered the correspondence as
closed by the acceptance of the message that he had delivered.”
The course of Colonel Burr's friend — without excuse— al-
lowed no further attempt at reconciliation, and the final arrange-
ments for the hostile meeting were completed. Possibly Gen-
eral Hamilton's first act of preparation was on the 4th of July, and
a letter to his wife, to be placed in her hands in the event of his
fall. In this he states that he had endeavored by all honorable
means to avoid the duel, and that he should not survive ; and he
begs her forgiveness for the pain his death would cause her, and
entreats her to bear her sorrows as one who placed a firm reli-
ance on a kind Providence. .
Colonel Trumbull mentions,” that on the same day (July 4th)
he dined with the Cincinnati of New York, that he met, among
others, General Hamilton and Colonel Burr ; that the singularity
of their manner was observed by all, though few had any sus-
picion of the cause ; that Burr was silent, gloomy, and sour;
and that Hamilton entered with glee into all the gayety of a con-
vivial party, and even.sang an old military song.
On the 9th of July, Hamilton executed his will.
“In the name of God, amen. I, Alexander Hamilton, of the city of
New York, Counsellor at Law, do make this my last will and testament,
as follows: —
“First. I appoint John B. Church, Nicholas Fish, and Nathaniel
Pendleton, of the city aforesaid, Esquires, to be executors and trustees
of this my will; and I devise to them, their heirs and assigns, as joint
tenants, and not as tenants in common, all my estate, real and personal,
whatsoever and wheresoever, upon trust, at their discretion to sell and
*Autobiography, Reminiscences, and Letters, p. 244.
f
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 201
dispose of the same, at such time and times, in such manner, and upon
such terms, as they, the survivors and survivor, shall think fit; and out
of the proceeds to pay all the debts which I shall owe at the time of my
decease; in whole, if the fund be suſlicient; proportionably, if it shall
be insufficient; and the residue, if any there shall be, to pay and deliver
to my excellent and dear wife, Elizabeth Hamilton.
“Though, if it should please God to spare my life, I may look for a
considerable surplus out of my present property; yet, if he should
speedily call me to the etermal world, a forced sale, as is usual, may
possibly render it insufficient to satisfy my debts. I pray God that
something may remain for the maintenance and education of my dear
wife and children. But should it, on the contrary, happen that there is
not enough for the payment of my debts, I entreat my dear children, if
they, or any of them, should ever be able, to make up the deficiency.
I, without hesitation, commit to their delicacy a wish which is dictated
by my own. — Though conscious that I have too far sacrificed the inter-
ests of my family to public avocations, and on this account have the less
claim to burden my children, yet I trust in their magnanimity to appre-
ciate as they ought this my request. In so unfavorable an event of
things, the support of their dear mother, with the most respectful and
tender attention, is a duty, all the sacredness of which they will feel.
Probably her own patrimonial resources will preserve her from indi-
gence. But in all situations they are charged to bear in mind, that she
has been to them the most devoted and best of mothers.”.
General Hamilton’s “remarks explanatory of his conduct,
motives, and views,” in meeting Colonel Burr, is the last docu-
ment which remains to be inserted. It is in these words : —
“I was certainly desirous of avoiding this interview, for the most co-
gent reasons. -
“1. My religious and moral principles are strongly opposed to the
practice of duelling, and it would ever give me pain to be obliged to
shed the blood of a fellow-creature in a private combat forbidden by the
laws.
“2. My wife and children are extremely dear to me, and my life is
of the utmost importance to them, in various views. -
“3. I feel a sense of obligation towards my creditors; who, in case of
accident to me, by the forced sale of my property may be in some de-
gree sufferers. I did not think myself at liberty, as a man of probity,
lightly to expose them to this hazard.
“4. I am conscious of no ill-will to Colonel Burr, distinct from politi-
cal opposition, which, as I trust, has proceeded from pure and upright
motives. - -
“Lastly, I shall hazard much, and can possibly gain nothing, by the
issue of the interview. - -
“But it was, as I conceive, impossible for me to avoid it. There were
intrinsic difficulties in the thing, and artificial embarrassments, from the
manner of proceeding on the part of Colonel Burr. -
202 CHALLENGES AND TXU ELS.
Q
“Intrinsic, because it is not to be denied, that my animadversions on
the political principles, character, and views of Colonel Burr have been
extremely severe ; and on different occasions I, in common with many
others, have made very unfavorable criticisms on particular instances of
the private conduct of this gentleman.
“In proportion as these impressions were entertained with sincerity,
and uttered with motives and for purposes which might appear to me
commendable, would be the difficulty (until they could be removed by
evidence of their being erroneous) of explanation or apology. The
disavowal required of me by Colonel Burr, in a general and indefinite
form, was out of my power, if it had really been proper for me to submit
to be so questioned; but I was sincerely of opinion that this could not
be, and in this opinion I was confirmed by that of a very moderate and
judicious friend whom I consulted. Besides that, Colonel Burr appeared
to me to assume, in the first instance, a tone unnecessarily peremptory
and menacing, and in the second, positively offensive. Yet I wished,
as far as might be practicable, to leave a door open to accommodation.
This, I think, will be inferred from the written communications made
by me and by my direction, and would be confirmed by the conver-
sations between Mr. Van Ness and myself, which arose out of the sub-
iect. :
J “I am not sure whether, under all the circumstances, I did not go
further in the attempt to accommodate, than a punctilious delicacy will
justify. If so, I hope the motives I have stated will excuse me.
“It is not my design, by what I have said, to affix any odium on the
conduct of Colonel Burr, in this case. He doubtless has heard of ani-
madversions of mine which bore very hard upon him; and it is probable
that, as usual, they were accompanied with some falsehoods. He may
have supposed himself under a necessity of acting as he has done. I
hope the grounds of his proceeding have been such as ought to satisfy
his own conscience. .
“I trust, at the same time, that the world will do me the justice to
believe that I have not censured him on light grounds, nor from unwor-
thy inducements. . I certainly have had strong reasons for what I may
have said, though it is possible that in some particulars I may have been .
influenced by misconstruction and misinformation. It is also my ardent
wish that I may have been more mistaken than I think I have been,
and that he, by his future conduct, may show himself worthy of all
confidence and esteem, and prove an ornament and blessing to the
country.
“As well because it is possible that I may have injured Colonel Burr,
however convinced myself that my opinions and declarations have been
well founded, as from my general principles and temper in relation to
similar affairs, I have resolved, if our interview is conducted in the
usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve
and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my
second fire, and thus giving a double opportunity to Colonel Burr to
pause and to reflect. *
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 203
“It is not, however, my intention to enter into any explanations on
the ground. Apology, from principle, I hope, rather than pride, is out
of the question.
“To those who, with me, abhorring the practice of duelling, may
think that I ought on no account to have added to the number of bad
examples, I answer, that my relative situation, as well in public as
private, enforcing all the considerations which constitute what men of
the world denominate honor, imposed on me (as I thought) a peculiar
necessity not to decline the call. The ability to be in future useful,
whether in resisting mischief or effecting good, in those crises of our
public affairs which seem likely to happen, would probably be insepara-
ble from a conformity with public prejudice in this particular.
“ A. H.”
The parties met on the Jersey shore, opposite the city of New
York, at a place called Weahawk, on Wednesday morning, July
11th, at the early hour of seven o’clock. The particulars of the
duel follow, in the words of the seconds, Messrs. Pendleton and
Van Ness : —
“Colonel Burr arrived first on the ground, as had been previously
agreed. When General Hamilton arrived the parties exchanged salu-
tations, and the seconds proceeded to make their arrangements. They
measured the distance, ten full paces, and cast lots for the choice of po-
sition, as also to determine by whom the word should be given, both of
which fell to the seconds of General Hamilton. They then proceeded
to load the pistols in each other's presence, after which the parties took
their stations. The gentleman who was to give the word then ex-
plained to the parties the rules which were to govern them in firing,
which were as follows: “The parties being placed at their stations, the
second who gives the word shall ask them whether they are ready;
being answered in the affirmative, he shall say, Present; after this the
parties shall present and fire when they please. If one fires before the
other, the opposite second shall say, One, two, three, fire;— and he
shall then fire, or lose his fire.’ He then asked if they were prepared;
being answered in the affirmative, he gave the word, Present, as had been
agreed on, and both parties presented and fired in succession, — the
intervening time is not expressed, as the seconds do not precisely agree
on that point. The fire of Colonel Burr took effect, and General Ham-
ilton almost instantly fell. Colonel Burr then advanced towards Gen-
eral Hamilton, with a manner and gesture that appeared to General
Hamilton's friend to be expressive of regret, but without speaking
turned about and withdrew, being urged from the field by his friend, as
has been subsequently stated, with a view to prevent his being *.
O
nized by the surgeon and bargemen, who were then approaching.
further communication took i. between the principals, and the barge
that carried Colonel Burr immediately returned to the city. We con-
ceive it proper to add, that the conduct of the parties in this interview
was perfectly proper as suited the occasion.” -
204 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
Dr. David Hosack, the surgeon mutually agreed on to attend
the parties, wrote an account of Hamilton's last moments, which
was addressed to William Coleman, and is here inserted. It
may be mentioned, that when the Doctor, at the call of Mr. Pen-
dleton, hastened from his position on the field to the aid of Ham-
ilton, he was compelled to pass Mr. Van Ness and Colonel Burr,
and that Mr. Van Ness covered his friend with an umbrella, so
that the Doctor should not see him, and be able to swear to his
identity. * ,
“To comply with your request is a painful task; but I will repress
my feelings while I endeavor to furnish you with an enumeration of
such particulars relative to the melancholy end of our beloved friend
Hamilton, as dwell most forcibly on my recollection.
“When called to him, upon his receiving the fatal wound, I found
him half sitting on the ground, supported in the arms of Mr. Pendleton.
His countenance of death I shall never forget. He had, at that instant,
just strength to say, ‘This is a mortal wound, Doctor'; when he sank
away, and became to all appearance lifeless. I immediately stripped up
his clothes, and soon, alas! ascertained that the direction of the ball
must have been through some vital part.* His pulses were not to be
felt; his respiration was entirely suspended; and upon laying my hand
on his heart, and perceiving no motion there, I considered him as irre-
coverably gone. I however observed to Mr. Pendleton, that the only
chance for his reviving was immediately to get him upon the water.
We therefore lifted him up, and carried him out of the wood, to the
margin of the bank, where the bargemen aided us in conveying him
into the boat, which immediately put off. During all this time I could
not discover the least symptom of returning life. I now rubbed his
face, lips, and temples with spirits of hartshorn, applied it to his neck
and breast, and to the wrists and palms of his hands, and endeavored
to pour some into his mouth. When we had got, as I should judge,
about fifty yards from the shore, some imperfect efforts to breathe were
for the first time manifest; in a few minutes he sighed, and became
sensible to the impression of the hartshorn, or the fresh air of the
water. He breathed; his eyes, hardly opened, wandered without fixing
upon any objects; to our great joy he at length spoke: ‘My vision is
* “For the satisfaction of some of General Hamilton's friends, I examined
his body after death, in presence of Dr. Post and two other gentlemen. I
discovered that the ball struck the second or third false rib, and fractured it
about in the middle; it then passed through the liver and diaphragm, and,
as nearly as we could ascertain without a minute examination, lodged in the
first or second lumbar vertebra. The vertebra in which it was lodged was
considerably splintered, so that the spiculae were distinctly perceptible to the
finger. About a pint of clotted blood was found in the cavity of the belly,
which had probably been effused from the divided vessels of the liver.”
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 205
indistinct,' were his first words. His pulse became more perceptible;
his respiration more regular; his sight returned. I then examined the
wound to know if there was any dangerous discharge of blood. Upon
slightly pressing his side, it gave him pain; on which I desisted. Soon
after recovering his sight, he happened to cast his eye upon the case of
pistols, and observing the one that he had had in his hand lying on the
outside, he said, ‘Take care of that pistol; it is undischarged, and still
cocked; it may go off and do harm; –Pendleton knows (attempting to
turn his head towards him) that I did not intend to fire at him.’ ‘Yes,’
said Mr. Pendleton, understanding his wish, “I have already made Dr.
Hosack acquainted with your determination as to that.” He then closed
his eyes and remained calm, without any disposition to speak; nor did
he say much afterwards, excepting in reply to my questions as to his
feelings. He asked me once or twice how I found his pulse; and he
informed me that his lower extremities had lost all feeling; manifesting
to me that he entertained no hopes that he should long survive. I
changed the posture of his limbs, but to no purpose ; they had totally
lost their sensibility. Perceiving that we approached the shore, he said,
‘Let Mrs. Hamilton be immediately sent for ; – let the event be gradu-
ally broken to her; but give her hopes.' Looking up we saw his friend,
Mr. Bayard, standing on the wharf in great agitation. He had been
told by his servant that General Hamilton, Mr. Pendleton, and myself
had crossed the river in a boat together, and too well he conjectured
the fatal errand, and foreboded the dreadful result. Perceiving, as we
came nearer, that Mr. Pendleton and myself only sat up in the stern
sheets, he clasped his hands together in the most violent apprehension.
But when I called to him to have a cot prepared, and he at the same
moment saw his poor friend lying in the bottom of the boat, he threw
up his eyes and burst into a flood of tears and lamentation. Hamilton
alone appeared tranquil and composed. We then conveyed him as ten-
derly as possible up to the house. The distresses of this amiable family
were such, that, till the first shock was abated, they were scarcely able
; summon fortitude enough to yield sufficient assistance to their dying
riend.
“Upon our reaching the house he became more languid, occasioned,
robably, by the agitation of his removal from the boat. I gave him a
ittle weak wine and water. When he recovered his feelings, he com-
plained of pain in his back. We immediately undressed him, laid him
in bed, and darkened the room. I then gave him a large anodyne,
which I frequently repeated. During the first day he took upwards of
an ounce of laudanum; and tepid anodyne fomentations were also ap-
plied to those parts nearest the seat of his pain. Yet were his suffer-
ings, during the whole of the day, almost intolerable.* I had not the
* “As his habit was delicate, and had been lately rendered more feeble
by ill health, particularly by a disorder of the stomach and bowels, I care-
fully avoided all those remedies which are usually indicated on such occa-
sions.” - - ... • - -
•=&
18
206 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
shadow of a hope of his recovery, and Dr. Post, whom I requested
might be sent for immediately on our reaching Mr. Bayard's house,
united with me in this opinion. General Rey, the French Consul, also
had the goodness to invite the surgeons of the French frigates in our
harbor, as they had had much experience in gun-shot wounds, to ren-
der their assistance. They immediately came; but to prevent his being
disturbed I stated to them his situation, described the nature of his
wound and the direction of the ball, with all the symptoms that could
enable them to form an opinion as to the event. One of the gentlemen
then accompanied me to the bedside. The result was a confirmation
of the opinion that had already been expressed by Dr. Post and myself.
“During the night, he had some imperfect sleep; but the succeeding
morning his symptoms were aggravated, attended, however, with a
diminution of pain. His mind retained all its usual strength and com-
posure. The great source of his anxiety seemed to be in his sympathy
with his half-distracted wife and children. He spoke to me frequently
of them. “My beloved wife and children,’ were always his expressions.
But his fortitude triumphed over his situation, dreadful as it was ; once,
indeed, at the sight of his children, brought to the bedside together,
seven in number, his utterance forsook him; he opened his eyes, gave
them one look, and closed them again, till they were taken away. As
a proof of his extraordinary composure of mind, let me add, that he
alone could calm the frantic grief of their mother. “Remember, my
Eliza, you are a Christian,’ were the expressions with which he fre-
quently, with a firm voice, but in a pathetic and impressive manner,
addressed her. His words, and the tone in which they were uttered,
will never be effaced from my memory. At about two o'clock, as the
public well know, he expired.
“Incorrupta fides — nudaque veritas
Quando ullum invenient paren 3. t
Multis ille quidem flebilis occidit.’”
General Hamilton was visited, after the duel, by two distin- -
guished clergymen of New York, Bishop Moore, and the Rev.
Dr. Mason, who also addressed communications to Mr. Cole-
man, on the subject of their interviews. The Bishop wrote : —
“Yesterday morning, immediately after he was brought from Hobo-
ken to the house of Mr. Bayard, at Greenwich, a message was sent in-
forming me of the sad event, accompanied by a request from General
Hamilton, that I would come to him for the purpose of administering
the holy communion. I went; but being desirous to afford time for
serious reflection, and conceiving that, under existing circumstances, it
would be right and proper to avoid every appearance of precipitancy
in performing one of the most solemn offices of our religion, I did not
then comply with his desire. At one o'clock I was again called on to
visit him. Upon my entering the room and approaching his bed, with
the utmost calmness and composure he said, ‘My dear sir, you perceive
3HALLENGES AND DUELS. 207
my unfortunate situation, and no doubt have been made acquainted
with the circumstances which led to it. It is my desire to receive the
communion at your hands. I hope you will not conceive there is any
impropriety in my request.’ He added, ‘It has for some time past been
the wish of my heart, and it was my intention to take an early oppor-
tunity of uniting myself to the Church, by the reception of that holy
ordinance.’ I observed to him, that he must be very sensible of the
delicate and trying situation in which I was then placed; that however
desirous I might be to afford consolation to a fellow-mortal in distress,
still, it was my duty as a minister of the Gospel to hold up the law of
God as paramount to all other law; and that therefore, under the in-
fluence of such sentiments, I must unequivocally condemn the practice
which had brought him to his present unhappy condition. He acknowl-
edged the propriety of these sentiments, and declared that he viewed
the late transaction with sorrow and contrition. I then asked him,
“Should it please God to restore you to health, sir, will you never be
again engaged in a similar transaction ? and will you employ all your
influence in society to discountenance this barbarous custom 2'. His
answer was, ‘That, sir, is my deliberate intention.’
“I proceeded to converse with him on the subject of his receiving
the communion; and told him that, with respect to the qualifications of
those who wished to become partakers of that holy ordinance, my in-
quiries could not be made in language more expressive than that which
was used by our Church: “Do you sincerely repent of your sins past?
Have you a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful
remembrance of the death of Christ? And are you disposed to live in
love and charity with all men 2° He lifted up his hands and said:
“With the utmost sincerity of heart I can answer those questions in the
affirmative. I have no ill-will against Colonel Burr. I met him with a
fixed resolution to do him no harm. I forgive all that happened.' I
then observed to him, that the terrors of the Divine law were to be an-
nounced to the obdurate and impenitent, but that the consolations of
the Gospel were to be offered to the humble and contrite heart; that I
had no reason to doubt his sincerity, and would proceed immediately to
gratify his wishes. The communion was then administered, which he
received with great devotion, and his heart afterwards appeared to be
perfectly at rest. I saw him again this morning, when, with his last
faltering words, he expressed a strong confidence in the mercy of God
through the intercession of the Redeemer. I remained with him until
two o'clock this afternoon, when death closed the awful scene. He ex-
pired without a struggle, and almost without a groan.
“By reflecting on this melancholy event, let the humble believer be
encouraged ever to hold fast that precious faith which is the only source
of true consolation in the last extremity of nature. Let the infidel be
persuaded to abandon his opposition to that Gospel which the strong,
inquisitive, and comprehensive mind of a HAMILTON embraced, in his
last moments, as the truth from heaven. Let those who are disposed
to justify the practice of duelling be induced, by this simple narrative,
g
208 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
to view with abhorrence that custom which has occasioned an irrepar-
able loss to a worthy and most afflicted family; which has deprived his
friends of a beloved companion, his profession of one of its brightest
ornaments, and his country of a great statesman and a real patriot.”
Dr. Mason's letter was written in consequence of the appear-
ance in the Commercial Advertiser of an imperfect account of
his conversation with General Hamilton, the day previous to his
decease. He said: —
“On the morning of Wednesday, the 11th instant, shortly after the
rumor of the General's injury had created an alarm in the city, a note
from Dr. Post informed me that “he was extremely ill at Mr. William
Bayard's, and expressed a particular desire to see me as soon as possible.”
I went immediately. The exchange of melancholy salutation, on enter-
ing the General's apartment, was succeeded by a silence which he
broke by saying, that he “had been anxious to see me, and have the
sacrament administered to him ; and that this was still his wish.’ I re-
plied, that ‘it gave me unutterable pain to receive from him any request
to which I could not accede; that, in the present instance, a compliance
was incompatible with all my obligations, as it is a principle in our
churches never to administer the Lord's supper privately to any person
under any circumstances.’ He urged me no further. I then remarked
to him, that the Holy Communion is an exhibition and pledge of the
mercies which the Son of God has purchased; that the absence of the
sign does not exclude from the mercies signified; which were acces-
sible to him by faith in their gracious Author.” “I am aware,” said he,
“of that. It is only as a sign that I wanted it.” A short pause ensued.
I resumed the discourse, by observing that “I had nothing to address to
him in his affliction, but that same gospel of the grace of God, which it is
my office to preach to the most obscure and illiterate; that in the sight
of God all men are on a level, as all have sinned, and come short of his
glory; and that they must apply to him for pardon and life, as sinners,
whose only refuge is in his grace reigning by righteousness through our
Lord Jesus Christ.” “I perceive it to be so, said he ; “I am a sinner:
I look to his mercy.’ I then adverted to the infinite merit of the
Redeemer, as the propitiation for sin, the sole ground of our acceptance
with God; the sole channel of his favor to us; and cited the following
passages of Scripture: ‘There is no other name given under heaven
among men, whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus. He is able
to save them to the uttermost who come unto God by him, seeing he ever
liveth to make intercession for them. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth
from all sin.” This last passage introduced the affair of the duel, on
which I reminded the General, that he was not to be instructed as to
its moral aspect; that the precious blood of Christ was as effectual and as,
necessary to wash away the transgression which had involved him in
suffering, as any other transgression; and that he must there, and there
alone, seek peace for his conscience, and a hope that should ‘not make
him ashamed.” He assented, with strong emotion, to these representa-

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 209
tions, and declared his abhorrence of the whole transaction. “It was
always,’ added he, ‘against my principles. I used every expedient to
avoid the interview ; but I have found, for some time past, that my
life must be exposed to that man. I went to the field determined not
to take his life.’ He repeated his disavowal of all intention to hurt Mr.
Burr ; the anguish of his mind in recollecting what had passed; and
his humble hope of forgiveness from his God. I recurred to the topic
of the Divine compassion; the freedom of pardon in the Redeemer
Jesus to perishing sinners. ‘That grace, my dear General, which brings
salvation, is rich, rich—’ ‘Yes,’ interrupted he, “it is rich grace.” “And
on that grace, continued I, ‘a sinner has the highest encouragement to
repose his confidence, because it is tendered to him upon the surest
foundation; the Scripture testifying that we have redemption through the
blood of Jesus, the forgiveness of sins according to the richness of his
grace.’ Here the General, letting go my hand, which he had held from
the moment I sat down at his bedside, clasped his hands together, and,
looking up towards heaven, said, with emphasis, “I have a tender reli-
ance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord
Jesus Christ.’ He replaced his hand in mine, and, appearing somewhat
spent, closed his eyes. A little after, he fastened them on me, and I
proceeded. ‘The simple truths of the Gospel, my dear sir, which re-
quire no abstruse investigation, but faith in the veracity of God, who
cannot lie, are best suited to your present condition, and they are full
of consolation.” “I feel them to be so, replied he. I then repeated
these texts of Scripture: ‘It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all accep-
tation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and of sin-
ners the chief I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine
own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Come now, and let ws reason
together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white
as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.’ ‘This,”
said he, ‘is my support. Pray for me.’ ‘Shall I pray with you?”
‘Yes.’ I prayed with him, and heard him whisper as I went along;
which I supposed to be his concurrence with the petitions. At the con-
clusion he said, ‘Amen. God grant it.” -
“Being about to part with him, I told him, ‘I had one request to make.’
He asked what it was. I answered, ‘that, whatever might be the issue of
his affliction, he would give his testimony against the practice of duelling.’
‘I will,” said he, “I have done it. If that,’ evidently anticipating the event,
“if that be the issue, you will find it in writing. If it please God that I
recover, Ishall do it in a manner which will effectually put me out of its
reachin future.’ I mentioned, once more, the importance of renouncing
every other dependence for the eternal world, but the mercy of God
in Christ Jesus; with a particular reference to the catastrophe of the
morning. The General was affected, and said, ‘Let us not pursue the
subject any further, it agitates me.’ He laid his hands upon his breast,
with symptoms of uneasiness, which indicated an increased difficulty
of speaking. I then took my leave. He pressed my hand affection-
ately, and desired to see me again at a proper interval. As I was retir-
18%
210 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
ing, he lifted up his hands in the attitude of prayer, and said feebly,
* God be merciful to His voice sunk, so that I heard not the
rest distinctly, but understood him to quote the words of the publican in
the Gospel, and to end the sentence with ‘me, a sinner.’
I saw him a second time on the morning of Thursday; but from his
appearance, and what I had heard, supposing that he could not speak
without severe effort, I had no conversation with him. I prayed for a
moment at his bedside, in company with his overwhelmed family and
friends; and for the rest, was one of the mourning spectators of his
composure and 'dignity in suffering. His mind remained in its former
state: and he viewed with calmness his approaching dissolution. I left
him between twelve and one, and at two, as the public know, he
breathed his last.”
The intelligence of Hamilton's fall paralyzed the country. He
was the disciple who had leaned upon Washington's bosom.
His remains were interred in the family vault, Trinity Church-
yard, New York, on Saturday, July 14th. The funeral proces-
sion was immense. The streets were lined with people, and
even the house-tops were covered with spectators, who had
thronged to the city to witness the melancholy ceremonies.
Gouverneur Morris delivered an extemporary funeral oration
on a stage erected in the portico of Trinity Church, in presence
of the assembled thousands. Four of General Hamilton’s sons,
the eldest about sixteen, and the youngest about six years of age,
were seated near the orator, who concluded in these words : —
“You all know how he perished. On this last scene, I cannot, I
must not dwell. It might excite emotions too strong for your better
judgment. Suffer not your indignation to lead to any act which might
again offend the insulted majesty of the law; on his part, as from his
lips, though with my voice,—for his voice you will hear no more, −let
me entreat you to respect yourselves.
“And now, ye ministers of the everlasting God, perform your holy
office, and commit these ashes of our departed brother to the bosom of
the gravel” \ .
The reader cannot have failed to notice, that, in the correspond-
ence between Burr and Hamilton which preceded the duel, the
cause of offence is stated to consist in certain expressions uttered
by the latter in the presence of Dr. Cooper. But we are not to
limit General Hamilton's animadversions to a single case or oc-
casion, since he himself admits, in the paper which contains his
Remarks explanatory of his motives and views, that his unfavor-
able criticisms had been frequent and severe. Reference to the
published correspondence” of Hamilton will show, that as early
* Works, Vol. V. p. 529.
|
i

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 211
*,
as the year 1792, or twelve years previous to the fatal meeting,
he expressed himself thus : —
“Mr. Burr's integrity as an individual is not unimpeached. As a
public man, he is one of the worst sort, — a friend to nothing but as
suits his interest and ambition. Determined to climb to the highest
honors of the state, and as much higher as circumstances may permit,
he cares nothing about the means of effecting his purpose. 'T is evi-
dent that he aims at putting himself at the head of what he calls the
‘popular party,’ as affording the best tools for an ambitious man to work
with. – Secretly turning liberty into ridicule, he knows as well as most
men how to make use of the name. In a word, if we have an embryo
Caesar in the United States, ’tis Burr.”
These general sentiments were repeated subsequently, in the
same year, in two other letters to distinguished men of the time.
And besides, it is fair to presume from other facts, – which I
have not room to cite, – that the relations between the two gen-
tlemen were never intimate or confidential, at any period. They
entertained different sentiments towards the illustrious Com-
mander-in-chief, in the Revolution, and were original leaders of
opposite political parties in New York, at the peace and ever
afterwards. It was not strange, that two such men should come
to an open rupture. Nor can we wonder that Burr should have
demanded “satisfaction,” according to the duello. But we have
a right to condemn Hamilton for accepting the call. He was
not a duellist. True, in his youth (1778) he acted as second in
the combat between Colonel Laurens and General Lee ; but we
have his express declaration, in the Remarks just referred to, that
“his religious and moral principles were strongly opposed to the
practice of duelling.” He met his antagonist, who, in his judg-
ment, was a corrupt man, – for what ? Because, to use his own
words, “his relative situation, as well in public as private,” im-
posed upon him, as he thought, “a peculiar necessity not to de-
cline "; and because, regarding “what men of the world denom-
inate honor,” he considered that “his ability to be m future
useful, whether in resisting mischief or effecting good, in those
crises of our public affairs which seem likely to happen, would
probably be inseparable from a conformity with public prejudice
in this particular.” He violated, then, his religious and moral
principles, rather than not conform to “public prejudice.”
Hamilton, — in the deepest sorrow be it uttered, – though one
of the illustrious of the world, and to live for ever in our annals,
was hardly less than a suicide. When dying, he declared,
212 CHALLENGES AND DUEL8.
that “he had found, for some time past, that his life must be ex-
posed" to Burr ; and yet he resolved to go out and be shot
down, without remonstrance or resistance. This is undeniably
true. Without remonstrance, — for “explanation on the ground”
was, he said, “out of the question.” Without resistance, — for
he affirmed, in his last hours, to Dr. Hosack, that “Pendleton
knew that he did not intend to fire at ” Burr, – to Bishop Moore,
that “he met him with a fixed resolution to do him no harm,”—
and to Dr. Mason, that “he went to the field determined not to
take his life.” -
An examination of the course of his opponent allows us, after
the lapse of half a century, to repeat an emphatic remark of the
time, that he was a victim to “a long meditated and predeter-
mined system of hostility on the part of Mr. Burr, and his confi-
dential advisers.”
Burr arrived first at the lonely spot designated, and, calmly
divesting himself of his coat, cleared away the bushes, limbs of
trees, and other obstructions; and in the combat raised his arm
slowly, and took deliberate and fatal aim. Nothing but Hamil-
ton's death would satisfy him. When abroad, and in 1808, he
gave Jeremy Bentham an account of the duel, and said, “he was
sure of being able to kill him"; and “so,” records Bentham, “I
thought it little better than a murder.” Posterity will not be
likely to disturb the judgment of the British philosopher.
HANDEL, GEORGE FREDERIC, and M. MATHEson. In 1704,
at Hamburg, with swords. The immortal author of the Mes-
siah, and Matheson, the composer, were friends. A breach
of etiquette, during the performance of the latter’s opera of Cle-
opatra, produced a quarrel which terminated in a duel. Mathe-
son's weapon broke against one of his adversary’s buttons, which
put an end to the combat. .
HARDING, HENRY. See Barrington, Sir Jonah.
HARoºd, the last Saxon king of England. See William the
Conqueror.
HARRIs, JoHN S., and MR. RUGGLEs. In 1852, at Atalanta.
The first a lawyer, the latter an editor. Neither harmed.
HARVEY, “ToM.” See Bunbury, Reverend Sir Willian.
HASTINGs, SIR THoMAs, Admiral in the British Navy. Chal-
lenge, in 1850, to Richard Cobden, member of Parliament. The
Admiral, before a committee of Parliament, (of which Cobden

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 213
was a member,) made some remarks relative to a large appro-
priation of money for the naval service, which his friends sup-
pressed, on the ground that they were not proper for the public
eye, and would be injurious to the Admiral himself. Mr. Cob-
den, however, mentioned the circumstance to Mr. Bright, who
related it in a speech at Manchester. The orator, required to
give his authority, named his informant. Mr. Cobden was asked
to retract. He declined, and was invited to single combat. He
declined this also, and published the whole affair.
HASTINGs, WARREN, Governor-General of British India, and
SIR PHILIP FRANCIS, one of the supposed authors of Junius. In
India, in 1783. Sir Philip was a member of the Governor's
Council. The two gentlemen had long hated one another, but
had been induced by mutual friends to come to an apparent
reconciliation. It would seem from the account of the Gov-
ernor, that Sir Philip violated his pledges almost immediately, for
the former said in July, 1783, “I do not trust to his promise of
candor, convinced that he is incapable of it. I judge of his pub-
lic conduct by my experience of his private, which I find to be
void of truth and honor.” This accusation produced a challenge
from Sir Philip, which Hastings accepted. Sir Philip was se-
verely wounded, and returned to England.
HAwKINs, S. M., an officer of the 97th regiment, foot, British
army, and Lord Viscount MALDEN. In England, 1851. His
Lordship seduced the wife of Hawkins. The seconds, E. L.
Denys and Captain Brownrigg. Lord Malden received the fire
of his adversary, and discharged his own pistol in the air.
HAwKINs, See Dowdigan. >-
HAYEs, THoMAs, and JoHN NUGENT. In California, in 1853,
with pistols. Hayes, an assistant alderman of San Francisco;
Nugent, editor of the Herald. Nugent gave the challenge in
consequence of a card which Hayes published in the Whig.
Nugent was dangerously wounded at the second fire.
HAYES, , Solicitor. See Bric,
H., a Captain, and S., a Lieutenant, of the first Massachusetts
regiment, in the war of the Revolution. In 1782. Thatcher re-º.
lates the story thus: — * •
“Captain H. was esteemed a man of modest merit and unexception-
able character; he had long commanded a company, and proved him-
self brave in the field, and a good disciplinarian. Lieutenant S.; though,
a good active officer, is assuming, high-spirited, and values himself on
214 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
what he deems the principles of honor and the gentleman. He aspersed
the character of Captain H. with unfounded calumnies. Friends inter-
posed, and a reconciliation was apparently made. Lieutenant S., how-
ever, retained his old grudge, and renewed his slanders. Captain H.,
contrary to his principles, felt compelled to fight. He obtained a fur-
lough, visited his friends in-Massachusetts, made his will, and arranged
his worldly affairs. They met, and Captain H. received a mortal wound,
and died in three hours. His friends endeavored to bring Lieutenant
S. to punishment by legal process; but he drew his sword upon the
sheriff who came to arrest him, and the civil officer retired. But Lieu-
tenant S. was punished by public sentiment. In 1786 a regiment was
raised in Massachusetts for an Indian expedition, and though Lieutenant
S. was one recommended for a commission by several general officers,
the Governor and Council rejected his application with disdain.”
HEATH, JoHN, captain of marines, and OLIVER H. PERRY,
post-captain in the navy of the United States. In New Jersey,
near the city of New York, in 1818. The quarrel arose while
the two officers were in the Mediterranean, in 1815. Perry, in
referring to it, said, “I did, in a moment of irritation, produced
by strong provocation, raise my hand against a person honored
with a commission.” A court-martial followed the difficulty, and
both were privately reprimanded by Commodore Chauncey, who
commanded the American squadron in that sea. Some time after
their return to the United States, Heath sent a challenge. Perry,
in remarking upon his course in the combat, declared, “I cannot
consent to return his fire, as the meeting on my part will be en-
tirely as an atonement for the violated rules of the service.”
Heath fired and missed. Perry, in accordance with his deter-
mination, discharged his pistol in the air; and Decatur, his sec-
ond, then effected an adjustment. *
HECKERNAN, Baron de. See Pouchkin, º
HENLEy, RoBERT, Lord Northington. See Reeve, Zephaniah.
HENDERson, W., and H. MoRGAN. In Georgia, in 1851, with
rifles. Two shots were exchanged. The parties retired friends.
HENNIs, , and SIR John JEFFCoTT. In England, in 1833.
Hennis, a physician; Sir John, chief judge of the vice-admiralty
court, Sierra Leone. Hennis was mortally wounded. Sir John
absconded. The seconds were tried and acquitted.
HENRIQUEZ, See Phillips, Charles.
HENRY IV., King of England, and THoMAs Mowbray, Duke of
Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England. In England, year 1397, reign
of Richard II., and while Henry was Duke of Hereford. The
|
|
i

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 215
two dukes, embroiled in a mortal quarrel, arranged under the
royal sanction a trial of combat, with all the preliminary forms
and solemnities of the time. The parties, with their retinues,
most of the peers of the realm, and about ten thousand other
persons, repaired to the place appointed for the duel, when King
Richard put an end to the proceedings, and proclaimed sentence
of banishment against the noble combatants, who departed the
kingdom accordingly. Norfolk soon died at Venice. Hereford
having succeeded to the title of Duke of Lancaster, returned to
England in 1399, drove Richard from the throne, and was him-
self crowned as Henry IV., on the second anniversary of the day
on which he went into banishment. The civil wars between the
houses of York and Lancaster followed. The arrangements for
the combat between Norfolk and Hereford are related in Shake-
speare's best manner in Richard II. (For further particulars
of Henry IV., see Orleans, Duke of, and also Rothsay, Duke of)
HENRY W., of England. Challenge, in 1414, to the Dauphin
of France. Henry claimed the crown of France, as heir of Isa-
bella, daughter of Philip V. The Dauphin, in derision, sent him
some tennis-balls, thinking him fitter for play than war. Henry,
a few months afterwards, sent a challenge to the Dauphin, to de-
cide by single combat the difference between them as to the
throne of France. No answer was returned. º
HERBERT, Lord. In England, year 1606. A gentleman of
the bed-chamber of James I. seized and bore away the “top-
knot ” of Mary Middlemore, a damsel of the court. Lord Her-
bert demanded the prize, and was refused; he thereupon seized
the aggressor by the throat and nearly strangled him. They
were parted by friends, lest they should incur the penalty of
losing their hands, by blows in the palace. But they exchanged
a cartel to fight unto death in Hyde Park. James interfered, and
sent both to the Tower for a month. .
HERRIES, Lord. See Lindsay, Lord.
HERVEY, Lord. See Bath, William Pultney, Earl of
HESTER, Hon. D., and DR. GREEN. At or near Shreveport,
in 1849 or early in 1850. Both killed. , , - .
HICKEY, Colonel, and Joseph Moses. Near the Rio Grande,
in 1849. Hickey, who was formerly editor of the Wicksburg.
Sentinel, was killed. - - - • ‘
216 CHALLENGES AND OUELS.
HILL, REv. M.R., and Cornet GARDNER. In England, 1764.
The clergyman was slain. \
HILLAs, Major, and FENTON. In Ireland, I suppose in
1812. Hillas was killed. He said on the ground to the by-
standers: “I am sorry the mistaken laws of honor oblige me to
come here to defend myself; and I declare to God, I have no
animosity to man or woman on the face of the earth.” The
cause of this duel does not very clearly appear; but the Major
had given offence by “his humane efforts to protect the ship-
wrecked.” Fenton was tried for murder. Judge Fletcher pre-
sided, and in his summing up to the jury thus spoke : —
“Gentlemen, it is my business to lay down the law to you, and I will.
The law says the killing a man in a duel is murder, and I am bound
to tell you it is murder; therefore, in the discharge of my duty, I tell
you so; but I tell you at the same time, a fairer duel than this I never
heard of in the whole coorse of my life.” e
HollAND, Lord, and Lord WESTON. In England, about 1633.
Lord Weston was resident ambassador of Charles I. at Paris.
The Queen, Henrietta Maria, a French princess, intrusted some
letters to her mother and relatives in France to Lord Holland for
transmission; but they fell into the hands of Lord Weston, who
returned them to Charles. The two noblemen became involved
in a quarrel. Charles justified Lord Weston, and placed Lord
Holland under arrest, for offering “to fight the ambassador to
the death.”
HolmAN, Captain. See Shrewsbury, Earl of
Hoole, R. A., and ALEXANDER J. DALLAs. In 1851. The
parties differed at the National Hotel, Washington, and in con-
sequence arranged a meeting at Bladensburg. They were
arrested at or near the spot selected, and held to keep the
peace.
HoPE, JAMEs, and J. P. Jones. In Virginia, 1849. Both
wounded, the former dangerously. It is stated that Mr. Jones,
who is a midshipman in the navy, used the pistol that killed
Commodore Decatur.
HoPKINs, , and MR. TAYLOR. In California, 1851. The
parties were officers of the customs; the first a deputy collector,
the latter an inspector. A difficulty arose between them which
they agreed to settle with pistols at Benicia. Mr. Taylor was,
t
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 217
however, arrested by the civil authorities, and put under bonds
to keep the peace.
HoPKINS, EDwARD, of Maryland, and In 1814,
near Bladensburg. Hopkins was an ensign of infantry in the
army of the United States, and was killed.
HoRATII, the, and the CURIATII. In the 87th year of Rome,
and 667 years B. C. In the war between the Romans and the
Albans. The general in command of the forces of the latter
proposed to the King of Rome to refer the destiny of both people
to three combatants on each side, and that empire should be the
prize of the conquering party. The overture was accepted.
The Roman champions were the three Horatii; those of Alba,
the three Curiatii. In the duel which followed, five were slain.
Horatius, the survivor, saved Rome. On his return to the city
in triumph, he met his sister, the destined spouse of one of the
Curiatii; and enraged at the manifestations of her grief for her
loss, he slew her with his sword. “Begone to thy lover,” said
he, “and carry him that degenerate passion which makes thee
prefer a dead enemy to the glory of thy country.” Horatius
was seized, tried, and condemned to die, for the murder. He
appealed from the tribunals to the people, who, superior to the
laws, commuted his punishment to passing under the yoke, and
at the same time decreed him a trophy.
2 . Challenge to Hon. SAM Houston, late President
of Texas, and now a Senator in Congress from that State. I in-
troduce the name of this distinguished gentleman, to place on
record in these pages his sentiments on the subject of personal
combat, as found in a speech delivered by him in the Senate,
July 15th, 1854. It appears that Commodore E. W. Moore, of
the Texan navy, had addressed him a letter, in which he stated
that he would have demanded of him
“That redress which one gentleman has a right to expect from an-
other who has abused, vilified, and misrepresented him, as you have me
on so many occasions, in public bar-rooms, in the streets, and even in
the presence of ladies, but for the well-known fact that you have refused
to render satisfaction to General Lamar, Judge Burnett, and Dr.
- Archer, for gross and flagrant acts of injustice which you have done
them,” &c., &c. !
This letter was dated in 1845, but Mr. Houston had not re-
ceived it, nor had he any knowledge of it, until a very recent
day, when it was found among some public papers furnished by
the Commodore to Mr. Pearce, Senator from Maryland. In com-
19
218 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
menting upon it he said that he had “never had a correspond-
ence with General Lamar, or Mr. Archer, or a quarrel with
either of the three named ”; though he had received a verbal
challenge from one of them, which he declined. It was sent on
Saturday night, and proposed a meeting the next day.
“I objected to it,” he remarked, “first, on the ground that we were
to have but one second, and that was the man who brought the chal-
lenge. Another objection was, that we were to meet on Sunday morn-
ing, and that I did not think anything was to be made by fighting on
that day. The third objection was, that he was a good Christian, and
had had his child baptized the Sunday before. The fourth was, that I
never fought down hill, and I never would. I must, at least, make char-
acter, if I did not lose my life; and therefore I notified him in that way.
He seemed to be satisfied with this good-humored answer, and it is the
only challenge I have ever received in Texas.”
Mr. Houston, in a previous part of his speech, observed : —
“I will avail myself of this occasion now to declare that I never made
a quarrel with a mortal man on earth; nor will I ever do anything to origi-
nate a quarrel with any man, woman, or child living. If they quarrel
with me, it is their privilege : but I shall try to take care that they do me
no harm.”
HowARD, SAMUEL, and Jose.P.H WELCHER. In Georgia, 1803.
The parties were members of the city council, Savannah, and a
dispute arose in that body. Howard dangerously wounded.
The seconds, George M. Troup, who was subsequently Gover-
nor of Georgia, and George D. Sweet.
HowARD, LORD BERNARD. See Shrewsbury; Earl of
HowpEN, LoRD. See Soule, Pierre.
HUBERT, NUMA. See Hunt, George T.
HUGHES, JAMEs, and MR. TUCKER. In Virginia, 1803. Hughes
killed ; Tucker wounded.
HUMBERSTON, Major. See Fow, Charles James.
HUNT, GEORGE T., and NUMA HUBERT. In California, in 1854,
with pistols, ten paces. The former, ex-member of the legis-
lature ; the latter, late of the army. In consequence of a diffi-
culty at the theatre, San Francisco. Hunt was mortally wounded
at the third fire. - i
HUNT, THoMAs. See Frost, John William.
HUNTER, CHARLEs G. See Miller, William, Jr.

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 219
HUNTER, WILLIAM, and DAVID B. MITCHELL. In Georgia,
1802. Both citizens of Savannah ; the former, under the ad-
ministration of Mr. Adams, navy agent of that port. They
fought with pistols, at ten paces, to advance two paces at each
fire. At the first shot, Mitchell missed ; Hunter's ball struck
in Mitchell's side, but stopped in a fold of his shirt. At the
second fire, Mitchell was again hit full in the thigh, but the ball
again failed to penetrate ; Hunter was shot through the heart,
and died on the spot.
HURLEy, CATHARINE. See Hall, Jane.
HUSTON, Lieutenant NATHANIEL, of Pennsylvania, and En-,
sign BRADSHAw. In the “Western army,” 1794. Both officers
in the “U. S. Legion,” under General St. Clair. Both killed.
HUTCHINson, FRANCIs HELY. See Mountmorris, Lord.
HUxTon, MILTON, of New York, cornet of dragoons, army
of the United States. In 1809. He died of his wounds at Car-
lisle, Penn. Antagonist unknown.
ILLINois: Constitutional provision : —
“Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, fight
a duel, or send or accept a challenge for that purpose, or be aider or
abetter in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of the right of holding any
office of honor or profit in this State, and shall be punished otherwise,
in such manner as may be prescribed by law.” -
And every person appointed or elected to office is required to
take the following oath : —
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I have not
fought a duel, nor sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel, the probable
issue of which might have been the death of either party, nor been a second
to either party, nor in any manner aided or assisted in such duel, nor been
knowingly the bearer of such challenge or acceptance, since the adoption
of this Constitution; and that I will not be so engaged or concerned, di-
rectly or indirectly, in or about any such duel, during my continuance in
office. So help me God.”
ILLo, a colonel in the service of the Emperor of Austria, in
the “thirty years' war.” Challenge, in 1634, to Colonel Gor-
don, a Scotch officer in the same service. Count Wallenstein
and Duke of Friedland, generalissimo of the Austrian army,
revolted. Illo followed his general, and was created a field-mar-
shal. With other confidential friends of Wallenstein, he was
invited to a feast in the castle of Egra, by the Count's enemies,
220 CHALLENGES AND DUELs.
though under color of friendship to him, and of favoring his
plans. While at table, the hall was filled with armed men, who,
on a concerted signal, placed themselves behind the chairs of the
doomed guests. Illo alone had the presence of mind to defend
himself. He placed his back against a window, reproached
Gordon in bitter terms for his treachery, and finally defied him
to a fair and honorable fight. The challenge was not noticed.
Illo made a gallant resistance, and slew two of his assailants.
He fell at last, overpowered with numbers, and pierced with ten
wounds.
INGE, SAMUEL W., member of Congress from Alabama. See
Stanly, Edward, and also Gwin, William M.
INNEs and CLARKE. In Hyde Park, in 1748; with pistols.
The quarrel between these gentlemen, who were captains in
the British navy, was caused by the animosities which arose be-
tween Admiral Knowles and several of his officers, while em-
loyed against the possessions of Spain in the West Indies.
The Admiral accused some of his captains of misconduct, and
they, in turn, impeached him ; and on the return of the fleet to
England, a court-martial was the consequence of their mutual
accusations. Those who espoused the side of the Admiral were
met with the most angry spirit by those who assailed him. A
bloodless encounter occurred between the Admiral and Captain
Powlet; and finally a duel between Innes and Clarke., Innes was
mortally wounded : his antagonist was tried for murder, and con-
victed, but received the royal pardon.
Iowa : Constitutional provision : —
“Any citizen of this State who may hereafter be engaged, either di-
rectly or indirectly, in a duel, either as principal or accessory before the
fact, shall for ever be disqualified from holding any office under the
Constitution and laws of this State.”
IRBY, F. W., and Doctor FANT. In Alabama, 1854. The
two gentlemen had been rival candidates for the legislature of
that State. The difficulty was political. Irby was killed at the
first fire.
IRVING, C., and W. E. GIBSON. In Arkansas, 1849. The
former, previously editor of the Memphis Inquirer. At the first
fire, he received the contents of his antagonist's pistol in the
abdomen. A reconciliation was effected.

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 221
ISAAC, Emperor of Cyprus. See Richard I. of England.
See Ladd, J. B.
IsIDORE, Mons., and Mons. ALPHoNSE. In France, in 1853,
or early in 1854. They were both in love with a married lady.
Invited to her house with a large company, they were thrown by
accident into immediate contact, in the circle which surrounded
the object of their devotion, who appeared to favor Alphonse.
Isidore became irritated, and selected a card from a vase on a
table, and, with evident affectation, commenced crushing it in his
hands. Alphonse saw that the card was his own, and readily
understood the act. Directly the eyes of the rivals met, when
Isidore threw the card into the fire. Alphonse approached and
whispered, “I fear, monsieur, you did not read my address on
my card, – here's another: at what time to-morrow shall I have
the honor of seeing two of your friends with two of mine P”
“Ten o’clock,” was the response. They met the next day in the
fosse of the fortification near Vincennes, with swords. Isidore
was wounded in the shoulder.
IsTURITz, Señor. See Mendizabal, Prime-Minister of Spain.
ISAACs,
JACKson, ANDREw, President of the United States. Unable
to obtain authentic accounts of the affairs with which he was
connected in early life, and unwilling to do so distinguished a
person injustice, I deem it best to use no part of the fragmen-
tary materials in my possession, and to ask the reader's indul-
gence until better success shall attend my researches.
JACKson, JAMEs, an officer in the army of the Revolution, a.
e g * e e e \,
Major-General in the militia, a Governor of Georgia, and a Sen-
ator in Congress. Two duels. The first, in 1780, with Lieu-
tenant-Governor Wells of Georgia. Wells lost his life, and
Jackson was badly wounded in both knees. The second, in
1802, with Colonel R. Watkins, in consequence of a political
controversy. Jackson was wounded.
JARNAc, Mons., and Mons. DE LA CHAISTAIGNERIE. In
France, 1547. A judicial combat or duel; and the last which
occurred in France, authorized by a magistrate.
JAY, Hon. JoHN. See Littlepage, Lewis.
JEFFCoTT, SIR John. See Hennis.
f
19 #
222 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
JEFFREY, FRANCIS, Lord-Advocate of Scotland. See Moore,
Thomas.
JEFFRIES, LoRD. See Dryden, Charles.
JENKINs, SIR Jones. See Shrewsbury, Earl of
JESUP, General. See Clay, Henry, and John Randolph.
/
John, King of England. Challenge to Philip, King of France,
in 1195, or the year following, and in the reign of Richard I.
Philip informed Richard that Prince John had maintained secret
correspondence with him, and was in a league to overthrow his
brother. Richard, indignant at the intelligence, deprived John
of all his lands in England and Normandy, which he held of
the crown. John denied the accusation, and sent a challenge to
Philip, in which he claimed to be allowed to prove his innocence
by combat, either in person or by champion. The King of
France neither complied nor made answer & the message.
See also Lusignan, Count Hugh de.
Johnson, BENJAMIN. See White, T.
Johnson, E. W. See Daniel, J. M.
Johnson, GEORGE P. See Gwin, William M.
JoHNSTON, SIR JAMEs, and the seventh LoRD MAxwell. In
Scotland, about the year 1613. Possibly a meeting without the
preliminaries of a duel. In the feud between the two families,
the head of the house of Johnston was slain. Lord Maxwell
fled, but was betrayed by the Earl of Caithness, tried, and be-
headed.
Johnston, ZAchARIAH. F. See Stanly, Fabius.
Johnston E, Governor GEORGE. See Germaine, Lord George.
JonATHAN, a Jew, and PUDENs, a Roman. The Jew, accord-
ing to Josephus, was contemptible alike in character, family, stat-
ure, and general appearance. But he seems to have had suffi-
cient courage to defy the best of the Romans to single combat.
So mean a foe was despised, and his challenge declined, until
Pudens, a horseman, “out of his abomination ” of Jonathan's
words, and “perhaps out of an inconsiderate arrogance,” went
out to fight him. Pudens was slain ; and his adversary, while
exulting in his victory, was pierced through by a dart shot from
the bow of Priscus, a centurion; and both Jews and Romans set
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 223
up a shout, the one at the fall of Pudens, the other at the success
of the centurion.
Jones, GEORGE W., Delegate in Congress from Wisconsin.
See Cilley, Jonathan.
Jones, J. P. See Hope, James.
Jones, WILLIAM H., and JoHN S. NUGENT. In California,
1852. The former wounded. *
Jones, Major, and Colonel GRoNARD. In Florida, 1852, with
bowie-knives. Jones killed.
KEITH, W. J. See Dantzler, O. M.
KELLEY, JoHN. See Spear, W. S.
KELLY, Joseph, an officer in the British army. His antago-
nist was slain. Kelly was tried and narrowly escaped conviction.
Subsequently, he was in service under Wellington, and partici-
pated in the battle of Waterloo. Though personally known to
the Duke, he received no advancement. He was killed at Paris,
by a commissary with whom he had quarrelled.
KEMBLE, E. C., and editor of the Alta newspaper, and Col-
onel McDougAL. In California, 1851. Kemble the challenger.
The parties were arrested on the field. . "
KENNEDY, Doctor. See Walker, Judge.
KENTUCKY : Constitutional provisions : — Members of the
General Assembly, and all officers, before they enter upon the
execution of the duties of their respective offices, are required to
swear or affirm, - º
“That since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen
of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons, within this State
nor out of it, with a citizen of this State, nor have I sent or accepted a
challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, with a citizen of thise State ;
nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, or aided or assisted
any person so offending. So help me God.”
And a second article provides, that
“Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, either
directly or indirectly, give, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge to
any person or persons, to fight in single combat with a citizen of this
State, with any deadly weapon, either in or out of this State, shall be
deprived of the right to hold any office of honor or profit in this Com-
monwealth, and shall be punished otherwise in such manner, as the
General Assembly may prescribe by law.” - -
§

224 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
KERR, LoRD MARK, a British nobleman, and a French officer.
In 1743. The quarrel arose at a dinner given by the Earl of
Stair, commander-in-chief of the British forces in Germany.
Wraxhall, in his Memoirs, thus relates the occurrence.
“A difference of opinion having arisen during the repast, on some
point which was maintained by one of the French officers with great
pertinacity, Lord Mark Kerr, in a very gentle tone of voice, ventured
to set him right on the matter of fact. But the Frenchman, uncon-
scious of his quality, and perhaps thinking that a frame so delicate did
not inclose a high spirit, contradicted him in the most gross terms,
such as are neither used nor submitted to among gentlemen. The
circumstance took place so near to Lord Stair, as unavoidably to
attract his attention. No notice whatever was taken of it at the time,
and after dinner the company adjourned to another tent, where coffee
was served. Lord Mark coming in about a quarter of an hour later
than the others, Lord Stair no sooner observed him, than, calling
him aside, ‘Nephew, said he, ‘I think it impossible for you to pass by
the affront that you have received from the French officer at my table.
You must demand satisfaction, however much I regret the necessity of
it.’ ‘O my lord,” answered Lord Mark, with his characteristic gentle-
ness of manner, “you need not be under any uneasiness on that subject.
We have already fought. I ran him through the body. He died on
the spot, and they are at this moment about to bury him. I knew too
well what I owed myself, and I was too well convinced of your lord-
ship's way of thinking, to lose a moment in calling the officer to ac-
count.’”
KIER, SIR WILLIAM. See Montgomery.
KILKENNY, Earl of, and MR. BALL, an attorney. At the time
of the combat, the Earl was known as Lord Mountgarret. His
lordship had several insolvent tenants whose suits in law with
him were gratuitously managed by Ball and other members of
the Irish bar. In this circumstance, the difficulty originated.
Ball was the challenged party. They exchanged two shots.
His lordship was wounded each time. Ball escaped unharmed.
KIRKALDY of Grange. See Bothwell, James Hepburn, Earl of
KNIGHT, Captain. See Sheridan, Richard Brinsley.
LAcoMBE, Mons. See Blanc, Mons. Charles.
LADD, J. B., and MR. IsAAcs. In South Carolina, in 1786.
Ladd was a physician, and utterly opposed to duelling; he was
mortally wounded. * -
LAFAYETTE, the Marquis of Challenge, in 1778, to the Earl
\
CHALLENGES AND DUELS, 225
of Carlisle. The Earl was one of the Commissioners of Eng-
land to the United States, during the Revolution, to effect a
reconciliation between the two countries. In an address to
Congress, after the failure of the mission, the Commissioners
used the following expressions : —
“They remain astonished at the calamities in which the unhappy people
of these Colonies continue to be involved, from the blind deference which
their leaders profess towards a power that has ever shown itself an enemy
to all civil and religious liberty, and whose offers, his Majesty's Commis-
sioners must repeat, whatever may be the pretended date and present form
of them, were made only in consequence of the plan of accommodation
concerted in Great Britain, and with a view to prevent the reconciliation
proposed, and to prolong this destructive war.”
These terms were deemed highly derogatory to France, by
the French officers in the service of Congress, and the Marquis,
as the highest in rank, in behalf of his country, sent the Earl a
chivalrous note requiring personal satisfaction. The Earl very
properly declined to make private and individual atonement for
an act performed with others in the discharge of a public duty.
The course of Lafayette was in opposition to the advice of
Washington, and of the Count d'Estaing. The Commander-in-
chief, in reply to a communication on the subject, addressed to
him by the Marquis, without directly condemning the practice
of duelling, presented various considerations against a challenge
in that particular case ; and subsequently, in a letter to the
Count, he observed that he had “omitted neither serious rea-
soning nor pleasantry to divert the Marquis from a scheme in
which he could be so easily foiled, without having any credit
given him by his antagonist for his generosity and sensibility.”
Lafayette had expressed a wish to be governed by the opinion
of Washington; but believing that he had committed himself
too far to retract with decency, he persisted in his purpose.
Washington, however, derived consolation from the reflection
that the Earl would decline ; and that,
“while our friend gains all the applause which is due to him for
wishing to become the champion of his country, he will be secure from
the possibility of such dangers as my fears would otherwise create for
him, by those powerful barriers which shelter his lordship, and which
I am persuaded he will not in the present instance violate.” -
The Count entertained the same sentiments; and wrote to the
Commander-in-chief, that “ambassadors, commissioners, and
men in office, are supposed to speak only in consequence of
226 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
orders which they have received ”; that, “as public organs,
they owe an account only to their own government of the things
which they hazard ”; and that he could not, therefore, presume
that Lord Carlisle would accept the invitation of the Marquis.
As his lordship declined on the grounds anticipated by the two
distinguished personages who were consulted by the sensitive
French noble, he could but have stood justified, even in the
judgment of the most scrupulous advocate of the duello.
LAFAYETTE, GEORGE W. See Dulong, Mons.
LAFRETTE, Mons. See Bouteville, Count Charles.
LAMARTINE, ALFonse DE, and GABRIEL PEPE. In 1825,
Lamartine was appointed Secretary to the French Legation at
Florence, and, in a poem written in imitation of Byron's Childe
Harold, indulged, in conclusion, in an eloquent tirade upon the
degradation of Italy. Colonel Pepe, a Neapolitan officer, took
offence, and in the name of his country “demanded satisfac-
tion.” The poet and the soldier met. The former was danger-
ously wounded ; before his recovery was complete, he gener-
ously interceded with the Grand Duke in behalf of his adversary.
LANDAIs, PIERRE, and CAPTAIN Cotti NEAU. In Holland, in
1778. Both were officers in the navy of the United States.
Landais was the challenger. They met with small swords.
Landais was a master of the weapon, and gave his antagonist a
severe wound.
Landais, in the celebrated battle between the Bon Homme
Richard and the Serapis, behaved infamously. He was in com-
mand of the frigate Alliance, and, disobeying the signal of John
Paul Jones, who was commander of the little American squadron,
he placed his ship in a position where he could be a spectator
of the fight, until the Richard and Serapis had grappled, when
he ran down under easy sail, and deliberately fired into the
Richard, killing several on board of her. The attack was de-
signed ; for he would not desist, though hailed from the Richard,
and told that his fire was upon the Commodore's ship instead of
the enemy’s. -
Landais was accordingly, and upon charges preferred by the
officers of the American ships, summoned to Paris by Franklin,
to answer for his baseness. Cottineau was a witness against
him ; and this circumstance, with the differences which had
occurred during the cruise, gave rise to the duel,
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 227
It was the opinion at the time, that Landais intended to kill
Jones, and disable the Bon Homme Richard, in order to finish,
himself, the conquest of the Serapis. As it was, he claimed the
merit of the victory, on the ground that he gave a raking fire
which caused the Serapis to surrender.
Landais, elated by his success in the affair with Cottineau,
sent a challenge to Jones. But the Commodore despatched
officers to arrest him, when he made his escape.
LANE, J. H., Lieutenant-Governor of Indiana, and Colonel
EBENEZER DUMonT, a member of the legislature. In 1851.
The account is, that the Lieutenant-Governor was the challenger,
and that, after the parties arrived on the ground, he withdrew
his challenge.
LANUssE. See Marigny, Gustavus.
LARRY, Colonel. See Dulong, Mons.
LAs CASEs, son of Emanuel A. D., Count and Marquis Las
Cases. Challenge, in 1823, to Sir Hudson Lowe. The Count,
in his Memorial de Sainte Helene, a work which appeared
originally in eight volumes, spoke in severe terms of the Eng-
lish Governor's treatment of Napoleon; to which allegation Sir
Hudson published an insulting answer. Th9 Count's son
thereupon repaired to England, and sent his †: adversary
a cartel. Sir Hudson declined, and took measures to remove
the challenger from the country.
LAUDERDALE, Lord, and General BENEDICT ARNOLD. In
1792, in England. That such a man as his lordship's antag-
onist was so far recognized as a gentleman as to be permitted
to fight a duel, is wonderful.
LAUDERDALE, Lord. See Richmond, Duke of
'IAURENs, Colonel JoHN. See Lee, General Charles.
LAURy, Mons. See Vieyra, Mons.
LAw, John, the financier. See Wilson, Edward.
LAwson, Lieutenant, Navy of U. S. See McKnight, James.
LECKIE, ROBERT, and HALL. In Charleston, S. C.,
1852. The Mercury of that city published the following: —
“The parties had met the day previous, and offensive language had
passed between them. Yesterday, Mr. Leckie, expressing a determi-
228 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
nation to have satisfaction, borrowed a six-barrelled revolver from a
friend, which he carried to a gunsmith, by whom it was put in order
and loaded. Armed with this weapon, and accompanied by a friend,
he proceeded to Mr. Hall's place of business in King Street, called him
to the door, and demanded satisfaction. Mr. Hall expressed his willing-
ness to give him all the satisfaction he desired, but reminded him that
this was no proper place for the settlement.
“The parties then moved along King Street and turned into Beaufain
Street. Here Mr. Leckie repeated his demand for satisfaction, on
—which Mr. Hall faced about, and the parties, about six feet apart, sim-
ultaneously drew their revolvers, and exchanged two shots in rapid
succession. At Mr. Hall's second shot, Mr. Leckie, placing his hand to
his right side, retreated into the store of Mr. C. W. DeLand, by the
side door. After a brief pause Mr. Hall passed by the door, on his
return to King Street, which Mr. Leckie observing, stepped out, fired a
third shot at his antagonist's back, and then retreated within the door.
Mr. Hall turned and fired in reply, his ball grazing the edge of the
doorway. Mr. Hall's second shot was the only one that took effect.
It entered the right side of Mr. Leckie, passed through the liver, and
resulted in his death in less than thirty minutes after he received the
wound. -
LEE, CHARLEs, a Major-General in the army of the Revolu-
tion. His affairs of honor were numerous. It is believed that
, he was engaged in several before he came to America. The
last, with an Italian officer, who was killed, compelled him to
flee ; and in 1773 he sailed from London for New York. -
In 1778, after he was tried for his conduct at Monmouth,
he published a Defence; in which he spoke of Washington in
terms of censure and abuse. Colonel John Laurens, an aid of
the Commander-in-chief, was impelled to notice it, and accord-
ingly wrote to Hamilton upon the subject. • *
“You have seen,” he said, “and by this time considered, General
Lee's infamous publication. I have collected some hints for an answer;
but I do not think, either that I can rely upon my own knowledge of
facts and style to answer him fully, or that it would be prudent to un-
dertake it without counsel. An affair of this kind ought to be passed
over in total silence, or answered in a masterly manner.”
His letter concludes with an intimation, that, as Hamilton
held “the pen of Junius,” he should use it to expose the false-
hood and inconsistency of Lee's pamphlet. The task was
never, I suppose, undertaken. But Laurens sent Lee a chal-
lenge, which was accepted. A Narrative of what occurred
on the ground, signed by the seconds, is to be found in the
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 229
Works of Iſamilton. It is here inserted entire. It bears date,
Philadelphia, December 24th, 1778.
“General Lee, attended by Major Edwards, and Colonel Laurens,
attended by Colonel Hamilton, met agreeable to appointment on Wed-
nesday afternoon at half past three, in a wood, situate near the four-mile
stone on the Point-no Point Road. Pistols having been the weapons
previously fixed upon, and the combatants being provided with a brace
each, it was asked in what manner they were to proceed. General
Lee proposed to advance one upon another, and each fire at what time
and distance he thought proper. Colonel Laurens expressed his pref-
erence of this mode, and agreed to the proposal accordingly.
“They approached each other within about five or six paces, and ex-
changed a shot almost at the same moment. As Colonel Laurens was pre-
paring for a second discharge, General Lee declared himself wounded.
Colonel Laurens, as if apprehending the wound to be more serious than
it proved, advanced towards the General to offer his support. The same
was done by Colonel Hamilton and Major Edwards, under a similar ap-
prehension. General Lee then said the wound was inconsiderable; less
than he had imagined at the first stroke of the ball, and proposed to fire
a second time. This was warmly opposed both by Colonel Hamilton
and Major Edwards, who declared it to be their opinion that the affair
should terminate as it then stood. But General Lee repeated his
desire that there should be a second discharge, and Colonel Laurens
agreed to the proposal. Colonel Hamilton, observed, that, unless the
General was influenced by motives of personal enmity, he did not think
the affair ought to be pursued any further; but as General Lee seemed
to persist in desiring it, he was too tender of his friend's honor to per-
sist in opposing it. The combat was then going to be renewed; but
Major Edwards again declared his opinion that the affair ought to end
where it was. General Lee then expressed his confidence in the honor

of the gentlemen concerned as seconds, and said he should be willing to .
comply with whatever they should coolly and deliberately determine.
Colonel Laurens consented to the same.
“Colonel Hamilton and Major Edwards withdrew, and, conversing
a while on the subject, still concurred fully in the opinion, that for the
most urgent reasons the affair should terminate as it was then circum-
stanced. This decision was communicated to the parties, and agreed to
by them, upon which they immediately returned to town; General Lee
slightly wounded in the right side.
“During the interview, a conversation to the following purport passed
between General Lee and Colonel Laurens. On Colonel Hamilton's
intimating the idea of personal enmity, as before mentioned, General
Lee declared he had none, and had only met Colonel Laurens to defend
his own honor, – that Mr. Laurens best knew whether there was any
on his part. Colonel Laurens replied, that General Lee was acquainted
with the motives that had brought him there, which were, that he had
been informed from what he thought good authority, that General Lee
:
20
230 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
had spoken of General Washington in the grossest and most opprobri-
ous terms of personal abuse, which he, Colonel Laurens, thought him-
self bound to resent, as well on account of the relation he bore to Gen-
eral Washington, as from motives of personal friendship and respect
for his character. General Lee acknowledged that he had given his
opinion against General Washington's military character to his particular
friends, and might perhaps do it again. He said every man had a right
to give his sentiments freely of military characters, and that he did not
think himself personally accountable to Colonel Laurens for what he
had done in that respect. But he said he had never spoken of General
Washington in the terms mentioned, which he could not have done; as
well because he had always esteemed General Washington as a man, as
because such abuse would be incompatible with the character he would
ever wish to sustain as a gentleman. -
“Upon the whole,” concludes the Narrative, “we think it a piece of
justice to the two gentlemen to declare that, after they met, their con-
duct was strongly marked with all the politeness, generosity, coolness,
and firmness that ought to characterize a transaction of this nature.”
In recording an account of this duel, Graydon in his Memoirs
remarks, – as every one will now do: —
“And so the affair ended, without the smallest bearing on the point in
controversy, namely, whether General Lee was right or wrong in speaking
reproachfully of the Commander-in-chief, - and only establishing the fact,
that the combatants could risk their lives with the gallantry and self-
possession of soldiers and men of honor.”
And besides, it is to be observed that General Lee, while
upon the ground, maintained the propriety of his course, and
gave a significant intimation that he should not abandon it. In
one word, THE COMBAT SETTLED NOTHING.
General Lee, not long after his duel with Colonel Laurens,
became embroiled in a quarrel with William Henry Drayton,
Chief Justice of South Carolina. The Judge, in a charge to the
grand jury, took occasion to censure the General for his con-
duct in New Jersey, and especially for his deportment at the
battle of Monmouth. The Judge, who, as a member of Con-
gress, had been one of the General's most active and determined
adversaries, was required to explain. No satisfactory answer
was obtained ; and a challenge followed. The Judge declined
the call, because duelling did not comport with his official sta-
tions, and because he was not bound to “sacrifice his public
reputation, and outrage his public character, merely to gratify
General Lee in the line of his profession.” These reasons
were conclusive. Well for society, if every man of standing
possessed the courage to act in the same way.

CHALLENGES AND DUET.S. 231
LEGARE, J. DAVIDSON, and JoHN DUNov ANT. Near Charles-
ton, S. C., in 1853, with pistols. Legare was killed at the first
fire. It is probable that there were several causes for this duel.
First, the excitement of a newspaper controversy between
Messrs. Alfred M. Rhett and Isaac M. Dwight, of South Caro-
lina, which was political, and related to the “Union ” and
“Nullification ” parties in that State ; second, the alleged
remarks of Dunovant of a personal nature, which seriously
injured Legare's character; and third, the rival claims of the
two gentlemen to the affections of a lady.
LEGGETT, WILLIAM, and JoHN MoRRIson. In California, 1852.
Three shots exchanged. Leggett killed on the spot, at the third
fire.
LEISTER, EDwARD. See Doty, Edward.
LEMERY, General. See Augero, Mons.
LEMON, F. See Graham, W. H. *
LEMPSTER, Lord. See Grey, Captain in the British Army.
LENox, Colonel. See Richmond, Duke of.
LEoN, PoncE DE. See Velasco.
LEoNIssa, GENTILE, General. See Sforza, Francesco.
LESSESs, and At or near New Orleans, in 1853.
Lessess killed. Both young men and minors. .
See McCain. , \
LEwis, , member of Congress from Virginia. See Cush-
ing, General Thomas H.
LEvy,
LHAM-DREAG, a name signifying a bloody hand. This person-
age is of elfin chivalry. The fable is, that he was to be en-
countered in the forest of Glenmore, Scotland; that, arrayed as
an ancient warrior with a bloody hand, he insisted upon single
combat with every person he met.
LIGONIER, Lord. See Alfieri, Vittorio, Count.
LINDSAY, Colonel W. M., and A. H. DAVIDson. In Arkansas,
1854, with pistols, at fifteen paces. Shots exchanged without
effect. Mutual friends interposed, and arranged the difficulty. .
LINDSAY, Lord. Challenge to Lord HERRIEs, in Scotland, in
1568. Lord Herries had said that Morton and Maitland were
232 CHALLENGES AND DUELs."
guilty of the murder of Lord Darnley, a crime which Murray
and his associates, as will be remembered, charged upon the ill-
fated Mary of Scotland. Herries scornfully refused the chal-
lenge, but offered to fight the persons whom he had accused.
(See Bothwell.)
LITTLEPAGE, LEwis. Challenge to JoHN JAY, in New York,
, 1785. When, in 1780, Mr. Jay was Minister at the Court of
Spain, he took Littlepage into his family, and, to relieve his
necessities, made a considerable advance to him in cash. The
debt remained unpaid ; and after both returned to the United
States, Mr. Jay resorted to a suit to recover it. This act pro-
duced a challenge from Littlepage, which was declined. The
correspondence between them was published in 1786, in which
year Littlepage became confidential secretary to the King of
Poland, and was sent on a diplomatic mission to Russia. Mr.
Jay considered that his confidence and kindness were much
abused, and bitterly spoke of his challenger, as one “with my
money in his pocket, and my meat still sticking in his teeth.”
LITTLETON, ADAM. Antagonist unknown. He was slain.
He was son of the second Sir Edward Littleton, of the noble
house of Hatherly.
LITTLETON, WALTER, a brother of the preceding, and a major
in the army. In the time of the Stuarts. He was killed. His
wife was a daughter of the Earl of Banbury.
See Ackland, e
LoBENSTAT, Count de, a Prussian nobleman. In 1828. He
slew his adversary, and was convicted. The king deprived him
of his honors, and ordered him to be imprisoned for life. Other
persons concerned in the affair were sentenced to confinement
for various periods.
LLOYD,
LocHIEL, SIR. EwAN. He was chief of the clan Cameron,
during the civil wars, and adhered to the Stuarts until their cause
was hopeless. He was engaged in a duel or single combat with
an English officer, who was one of the strongest and bravest men
in the army. They fought long, furiously, desperately. Lochiel
finally disarmed his antagonist, when they wrestled and fell to
the ground in each other's arms. In the struggle which followed,
the Englishman got uppermost. Lochiel, whose hands were
free, seized him by the collar, and, fastening his teeth upon his
CHALLENGES AND DUELS, - 233
throat, brought away a mouthful of flesh, which, he said, was
“the sweetest bit he ever had in his life.”
LoNDEN, J. S., and DAVID E. HACKER. In California, 1854.
Cause political. The former killed.
LONDONDERRY, Marquis of See Battier, —.
LoRN, Lord of. See Campbell, Sir Colin.
LoRREs, SIR LANCELOT DE, a French knight, and SIR John
CoPELAND, an Englishman. In France, in 1379. The French
and English cavalry met, and immediately prepared for battle.
Sir Lancelot cried aloud, that his mistress was more beautiful
than the mistress of any of his adversaries. Sir John denied the
statement, and, engaging with the French knight, laid him dead
at his feet. -
LouisianA: Constitutional provisions. The members of the
General Assembly, and all officers, before they enter upon the
duties of their office, are required to take the following oath or
affirmation : —
“That, since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen
of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State,
'nor out of it, with a citizen of this State ; nor have I sent or accepted a
challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons with a citizen of this State;
nor have I acted as a second in carrying a challenge, or aided, advised, or
assisted any person thus offending: so help me God.” -
By another article, it is provided : —
“Any citizen of this State, who shall, after the adoption of this Con-
stitution, fight a duel with deadly weapons with a citizen of this State,
or send or accept a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, either
within this State or out of it, with a citizen of this State, or who shall
act as second, or knowingly aid and assist in any manner those thus
offending, shall be deprived of holding any office of trust or profit, and
of enjoying the right of suffrage under this Constitution; and the office
of any State officer, member of the General Assembly, or of any other
i. holding office of profit or trust under this Constitution and the
aws made in pursuance thereof, shall be ipso facto vacated by the fact
of any such person committing the offence mentioned in this article;
and the j shall provide by law for the ascertaining and decla-
ration of such forfeiture.”

* .
Lowe, SIR HUDson. See Las Cases, -
LowTHER, SIR JAMEs, Baronet. See Germain, Lord George.
Loyola, IGNATIUS, or (as his name stands in judicial acts)
- 20 +
234 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
DoN INIGo DE RECALDE. The youngest son of the house of
Loyola, and the founder of the Jesuits. No man of his time, in
the early part of his career, was more ambitious of knightly re-
nown. His arms and his horses were the best. Deeds of valor,
love, and the adventures of the duel, were the great objects of
life. He celebrated an Apostle in a chivalric romance. He
called out a Moor for denying the divinity of our Saviour. As
the leader of the sect or order in the Church which has made his
name memorable, he and his personal associates pleased them-
selves with the idea of making war against Satan; and, in ac-
cordance with his military propensities, assumed the name of the
“Company of Jesus.”
LUNA, Count of, and the Count of VALENCIA. The parties
were nobles of Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella, to put an end to
duels among the nobility, approved of an act of the Cortes which
subjected both principals and seconds to the penalties of treason.
But the Counts, disobeying this law, exchanged a cartel of defi-
ance, and were imprisoned. -
LUNDY, E. B. See Dibble, George M.
LUSIGNAN, HUGH DE, Count of, surnamed LE BRUN. A noble
of France, of great power and influence. Challenge to King
John of England, in the year 1200. The incidents here to be
related are among the most romantic in all history. Isabella of
Angoulême, of royal lineage, was affianced to Lusignan, and,
according to the custom of the time, under his protection for the
purpose of education. The English monarch saw her at a high
festival in France, became madly enamoured of her, and deter-
mined to win her. The parents of Isabella encouraged his suit,
while she, ambitious to share the triple crown of England, Nor-
mandy, and Aquitaine, denied that her faith was plighted to Lu-
signan, and married John at Bordeaux, in August, 1200.
Lusignan challenged the royal interloper to mortal combat.
John, on receiving the cartel, proposed to appoint a champion to
meet Lusignan, but the injured noble indignantly refused to fight
a substitute. The king and his bride departed; and in October
of the same year, Isabella was crowned Queen of England. In
the course of events, Lusignan was the prisoner of John, and,
refusing submission to the man who had robbed him of his be-
trothed, was immured in an English prison for several years.
At last the unfortunate lover was released, and became the ally
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 235
j
of John. But he remained unmarried, “in order to remind all
the world of the perfidy of that faithless beauty who had broken
her betrothment for a crown.”
In the lapse of years, Lusignan stipulated to aid John in the
restoration of the revolted French provinces, on condition that
the eldest daughter of the monarch and of Isabella should be
given to him in marriage. The king complied; and the princess
was committed to his care, to be educated in one of his castles,
as her mother had been before her.
King John, the most contemptible of men and of monarchs,
died in 1216; and within a year Isabella returned to France,
where she met Lusignan, her former lover, but now the affianced
of her daughter. The old passion revived on both sides; and
“the Helen of the Middle Ages,” who at the age of thirty-four
retained her marvellous beauty, became the wife of Lusignan.
As the marriage of the queen was without the consent of
any one in England, her dower in that kingdom was with-
held.
In 1244 the life of Louis, King of France, was twice at-
tempted, and, as was alleged, at the instigation of Isabella.
Lusignan made an appeal to battle, and offered to prove in com-
bat that his wife was falsely accused. The accuser declined the
duel, on the ground that Lusignan had forfeited his honor. There-
upon, Isabella's son Hugh offered to fight, and the time and place
were appointed, but the accuser withdrew a second time, on the
plea of the infamy of the family. Isabella died broken-hearted
two years afterwards; her husband followed in 1249. Such are
the outlines of the strange story of Isabella of Angoulême, and
Hugh, Count de Lusignan.
LUTTERELL, TEMPLE, and Lord GEORGE GERMAIN. Quarrel
in Parliament, in 1778. General Burgoyne, after his surrender,
returned to England on parol; and, refused an audience by the
king, endeavored to obtain a hearing in Parliament. In the de-
bate which arose upon a motion for an inquiry into his conduct,
Lutterell made an attack upon Lord George, who, in reply,
declared that, “old as he was, he would meet that fighting
gentleman, and be revenged.” The House interposed ; an apol-
ogy from both, and a promise that the affair should proceed no
further, followed. x- -
MACARTNEy, General. See Arran (Charles Hamilton), Count
of, and also Hamilton, Duke of
236 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
MACDoNNELL of Glengarry, and Lieutenant McLEOD. In
Scotland. A dissension of no moment occurred between these
gentlemen at a ball and supper. The most that Macdonnell
could allege was that McLeod gave him an “impertinent look.”
The gentlemen present saw no cause of offence. But Mac-
donnell struck McLeod with his cane, kicked him with his foot,
and drove him out of the room. A challenge ensued, and the
parties met. Macdonnell at last, however, saw the matter in its
true light, and offered any apology which, as a gentleman, he
could or was bound to make. McLeod was advised to reject a
verbal atonement, without also receiving into his own hand the
weapon used by Macdonnell at the ball, with liberty to return blow
for blow, as he should please. To these terms Macdonnell
would not accede. In the exchange of shots which followed,
McLeod received a wound in the breast of which he died. Mac-
donnell was tried and acquitted.
MACEDo, a Portuguese Jesuit. Challenge to Cardinal Norris.
The parties engaged in a controversy relative to St. Austin, and
the ecclesiastical power interfered. Macedo, forbidden to write
against the Cardinal, sent him a challenge. The woods of Bou-
logne were designated as the place of meeting; but an edict
put an end to the duel, much to the chagrin of the holy father
Macedo.
MACKNEATH, RoBERT, member of Parliament. Cartel, in 1793,
to Scott, the Solicitor-General, and subsequently Lord Eldon.
Mackneath was sentenced to pay a fine of £100, and to be im-
prisoned for six weeks. Lord Campbell, in his Lives of the
Chancellors of England, without mentioning the name of the
challenger, refers to this case, I suppose, when he says that
Eldon’s - - -
“last prominent act as Solicitor-General was, very properly, to ap-
peal to the laws of his country against a gentleman who sent him a
challenge for words spoken by him as counsel, strictly in the discharge
of his professional duty. There was no reason to doubt his personal
courage, but a display of it on such an occasion would have been a
wanton exposure of his own valuable life, and would have established a
precedent highly detrimental to the interest of suitors in courts of justice.
His conduct was entirely approved of by the Bar and by the public.
The challenger, who thus sought to restore his reputation from the dis-
É. which the evidence in the cause had cast upon him, was sentenced
y the Court of King's Bench to fine and imprisonment.”
*=
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 237
MACNAMARA, Captain in the British Navy. See Montgomery.
MAcomb, CHARLEs M., a native of New York, and an officer
in the army of the United States. He fell in a duel in 1814.
MACRAE, Captain. See Ramsay, Sir George.
MACUIRE, RICHARD DE. He was the companion in arms of
Aubry, a French-knight of the time of Charles V., and, accord-
ing to tradition, basely murdered Aubry, whose dog discovered
the crime. The King compelled Macuire to fight a duel with
his canine accuser, in order to decide the case. The murderer
was conquered. The German drama, The Dog of Aubry, or
the Wood of Bondy, is founded upon this story.
MALDEN, Lord Viscount. See Hawkins, S. M.
MANUEL, a Roman Emperor, of the twelfth century. He
slew in a single battle “ above forty barbarians,” and remarks
Gibbon, “He was ever foremost to provoke or to accept a single
combat, and the champions who encountered his arm were trans-
pierced by the lance, or cut asunder by the sword, of the invin-
cible " Emperor.
MANUEL, Mons., and Mons. BEAUMONT. At or near Paris, in
1821. Both were bankers of the highest standing. Manuel
was a Jew of Poland, married, the father of six children, and a
man of immense wealth. Beaumont was unmarried, a native
of Genoa, and possessed of a large fortune; he seduced Man-
uel's wife. The two gentlemen met on 'Change in Paris, after
Manuel had proof of his wife's infidelity, when a violent alter-
cation ensued. A challenge followed. It was agreed, in the
terms of the meeting, that one at least, should not survive the
combat. Manuel was killed on the spot: he was an excellent man,
and his fall was deeply mourned by all classes. He proffered
forgiveness to his frail wife, before the duel, on condition that
she would abandon Beaumont : she declined. Wade states that
the remains of Manuel were refused burial by the clergy, be-
cause of the manner of his death.
MANZINI, Signor, Minister of Finance, Rome. In 1849, he
addressed the following note to the editor of the London Times.
“SIR,- As I am a native of Rome, and consequently an Italian, and
being grossly insulted by Lord Brougham and his companions, I give
you notice our intention is to have a duel to repair mine and my coun-
try's honor, and, as an English nobleman, I hope he will not refuse the
invitation.” -

238 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
MANLIUs, TITUs. In the year of Rome 392, a Gaul of enor-
mous size, whose huge limbs intimidated the stoutest, defied the
bravest of the Romans to single combat. Manlius, by leave of
his general, accepted the challenge, and slew his adversary. The
surname of Torquatus was given him, and descended to his pos-
terity, in consequence of the achievement. The Gauls, dis-
couraged by the fall of their champion, abandoned their camp
at night, and fled.
MAQUIRE, HUGH. See St. Leger, Sir Warham.
MARIGNY, GUSTAvUs, and LANUsse. At or near New
Orleans, in 1830. They fought first with the small sword, then
resorted to the pistol, but ended the combat with the sword.
Both were wounded. Marigny died in a few minutes.
MARIon, FRANCIS, a general officer in the war of the Revo-
lution. During his service at the South, he expelled two officers
from his brigade for numerous offences against humanity; and
posted upon trees and houses, in public places, proclamations,
that Major and Captain were robbers and thieves, and
as outlaws might be killed wherever found. One of them chal-
lenged him to single combat; but he treated the call with con-
tempt. Subsequently, Marion received a cartel from Major
McIlraith, of the royal army, to meet in combat in the open
field. Marion, in reply, expressed his readiness for a fight be-
tween twenty picked soldiers on each side, according to the cus-
tom of the days of chivalry. McIlraith assented, and agreed
upon a spot near an oak-tree (which was standing in 1821); but
after the parties had been selected, and formed for combat, he
reconsidered the proposal, and withdrew his own men without
firing a gun.
MARLBoRough, Duke of Challenge to the Earl of Paulett,
in 1712. The Tories of England, as early as 1706, commenced
their clamors against the Duke, who, they declared, was governed
by selfish motives, and sacrificed the interests of his country for
his own private advantage. Three years later, the public senti-
ment had become general, and he was accused, on all hands, of
prolonging the war, and of sacrificing human life to increase his
property and reputation. In 1710, he became an object of de-
rision. Instances of his fraud, avarice, and extortion, of his
cruelty and misconduct, were related everywhere. The year
following, the Earl of Anglesey said in Parliament, that “a good
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 239
smilial | | | | | | | . . . . . . . + - - - -— — — — — — — —- - - - - - - - -
peace might have been obtained, but for the conduct of some
persons who prolonged the war, for their own private ends.”
The Duke could not misunderstand the insinuation, and vindicated
himself in a long speech. Finally, in 1712, the Earl of Paulett
ventured to utter in his place, that the Duke of Ormond “was not
like a certain general who led troops to the slaughter, to cause
a great number of officers to be knocked in the head, that he
might fill his pockets by disposing of their commissions.” Marl-
borough remained silent. But as soon as the Lords adjourned,
he sent Lord Mohun to the Earl of Paulett, with an invitation “to
go and take the air in the country.” The Earl inquired, whether
he should take the invitation to mean a challenge. “The mes-
sage,” replied Mohun, “requires no explanation ; I shall accom-
pany the Duke of Marlborough, and your lordship will do well
to provide a second.” The Earl was unable to conceal his
emotion ; and his wife communicated the affair to the Earl of
Dartmouth, Secretary of State, who informed the Queen. Her
Majesty desired the Duke to relinquish his design, and he accord-
Ingly abandoned it. This, as is supposed, is the first party or
political duel ever contemplated.
MARLBoRough, Duke of. See Mitchell, Sir John, Baronet.
MARTIN, an English painter. In 1740, while at Florence, he
sent a challenge to a Florentine cavalier or nobleman, for say-
ing that he “was no gentleman.” The Florentine repaired to
the house of Horace Mann, the British Minister, to inquire into
the standing of Martin, for he could not, he declared, consent to
fight with one who was no cavalier. It does not appear that he
was satisfied with the information obtained, or that he met the
painter, who, wrote Horace Walpole, appeared at the place and
hour appointed, “pale, but cross, with beard unshaved and hair
uncombed, a slouched hat, and a considerable red cloak, in
which was wrapped, under his arm, the fatal sword that was to
revenge” his honor.
MARTIN, SAMUEL. See Wilkes, John.
MARs, Robert, and W. S. STINET. In Kentucky, 1851; with
pistols. Mars was wounded in the throat; Stinet in the body.
MARSHALL, E. C. See Gwin, William M.
MARTINA, Duke of, champion of the Prince of Francavilla.
See Conversano, Count of. -
*.
240 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
MARYLAND: Constitutional provision :--
“Any citizen of the State who shall, after the adoption of this Con-
stitution, either in or out of this State, fight a duel with deadly weapons,
or send or accept a challenge so to do, or who shall act as second, or
knowingly aid or assist in any manner those thus offending, shall ever
gºer be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under this
tate.”
MAsoN, General ARMISTEAD T., Senator in Congress from
Virginia, and JoHN M. M'CARTy. Near Washington, in 1819,
with muskets. These gentlemen were relatives, and it is be-
lieved cousins. The dispute was political. Several friends of
Mason endeavored to persuade him, by the most earnest appeals,
to adjust the difference without a hostile meeting. He persisted.
In a letter addressed to M’Carty, which it would seem was never
read by him, Mason said: —
“SIR,--I have resigned my commission for the special and sole pur-
pose of fighting you; and I am now free to accept or send a challenge,
and to fight a duel. The public mind has become tranquil, and, all sus-
picion of the further prosecution of our quarrel having subsided, we
can now terminate it without being arrested by the civil authority, and
without exciting alarm among our friends.
“This effort has been delayed by my anxiety to effect such an ar-
rangement of my affairs as my duty to my family required. That ar-
rangement is just effected. I am extremely anxious to terminate at
once and for ever this quarrel. My friends, and , are fully
authorized to act for me in every particular. Upon receiving from you
a pledge to fight, they are authorized and instructed at once to give the
challenge for me, and to make immediately every necessary arrange-
ment for the duel on any terms you may prescribe.”
And, in his letter of instructions to the “friends' referred to,
which bears the same date (January 9th, 1819), he remarks : —
“GENTLEMEN, - You will present the inclosed communication to
Mr. John M’Carty, and tell him at once that you are authorized by me
to challenge him, in the event of his pledging himself to fight. If he
will give the pledge, then I desire that you will instantly challenge him,
in my name, to fight a duel with me.’ You are not authorized to give a
verbal challenge. It must be reduced to writing. Agree to any terms
that he may propose, and to any distance; to three feet, his pretended
favorite distance, or to three inches, should his impetuous and rash cour-
age prefer it. To any species of fire-arms, pistols, muskets, or rifles,
agree at once.”

On receiving the challenge, M’Carty proposed to fight on a
barrel of powder, or with dirks. Both modes were objected to,
on the part of Mason's seconds, as not in accordance with estab-
|
.*
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 241
º
lished usage. M’Carty, finally, in the following written commu-
nication, accepted the cartel, and stated the terms of the com-
bat.
“GENTLEMEN, - I agree to meet and fight your friend, General A.
T. Mason, to-morrow evening, at five o'clock, at Montgomery Court-
House. As I am at liberty to select the weapon with which I am to
fight, I beg leave to propose a musket charged with buckshot, and at
the distance of ten feet.
“ February 4, 1819.”
The seconds of the parties subsequently agreed upon a short
postponement of the time, to substitute a single ball for buckshot,
and to increase the distance to more than twelve feet. General
Mason was killed. It was alleged that he received three balls;
but it was ascertained, after a minute dissection of his remains,
that only one entered his body. Again, the Hon. Ben. Hardin is
reported to have said in the Kentucky Convention, 1850, that he
had been informed by Mr. M'Carty, that “the duel was forced
upon him by one of Mason's seconds.” In contradiction, we
have the declaration of the two gentlemen concerned, that they
did not urge “the affair to its unfortunate issue.” Mr. M'Carty
was severely wounded in the left arm, which, it is believed, was
amputated.
MATHEson, M. See Handel, George Frederic.
MATHEws, THoMAs, Captain. See Sheridan, Richard Brins-
ley. * --
MAXIMILIAN, Emperor of Germany, and CLAUDE DE BATRE, a
French knight. In 1495. The duel was in presence of all the
electors and princes of the German Diet. The Emperor by this
act, not only waived his own rank, but put in peril the existence
of the royal house.
º
MAxwell, Lord. See Johnston, Sir James.
MAY, Colonel, and Edward Rowe. In California, 1853.
Rowe was wounded in the neck; Colonel May, a member of
the Senate of California, escaped unhurt. -
LEvy. In South Carolina, 1849.
McCALLUM, Donald, and ALISTER McCol, or CoLKITTo. In
1647. McCallum was killed ; he was of the lineage of Malcom
of Pottallock. * . *
M’CARTY, John M. See Mason, General Armistead T.
- 21
McCAIN, Doctor, and
*,
*

242 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
McCol, ALISTER. See McCallum, Donald.
McCorkLE, J. W., member of Congress from California. See
Gwin, William M.
McDougAL, Colonel. See Kemble, E. C.
McDUFFIE, GEORGE, a distinguished statesman of South Caro-
lina, and Colonel CuMMING, of Georgia. Near “Sister's Ferry,”
South Carolina, June 8th, 1822, with pistols. An article ap-
peared in a Georgia paper in favor of the pretensions of Mr.
Crawford, and against those of Mr. Calhoun, to the Presidency
of the United States, which drew a reply from a gentleman of
South Carolina. The Georgia writer rejoined, assuming that
the South Carolina writer was Mr. McDuffie ; while that gentle-
man replied, in the belief that his opponent was Colonel Cum-
ming. Both were mistaken ; but no explanation was made on
either side, though it is understood that Mr. McDuffie assented
and Colonel Cumming objected to a proposition to submit the
dispute to the decision of friends.
Colonel Cumming desired to fight in round jackets, or shirt-
sleeves; his opponent suggested, “ or frock or surtout coat.”
The change was assented to, and the former appeared on the
ground in frock and pantaloons of cotton and limen ; the latter in
similar garments of silk. The preliminaries arranged, the par-
ties were summoned to their places, and exchanged shots, at a
distance of ten paces. Mr. McDuffie's ball struck the ground
about four paces from his own feet; while the bullet of his an-
tagonist entered his back obliquely, just below the short ribs,
and inflicted a wound from which he never recovered.
This duel gave rise to much newspaper wit and gossip. The
Chronicle, published at Augusta, Georgia, gave the public, as it
stated, an “authentic account of the affair,” in which it was
said that Colonel Cumming's pistol was loaded “for the side,
not for the back, for the resistance of common drapery, not of
several folds of strong silk,” &c., &c. The general tone of
this article was against Mr. McDuffie, and gave the impression
that his conduct was dishonorable, not only in the preparation
of his dress, but in retiring from the field after a single shot.
These statements were assumed to be true by editors in differentº
parts of the country, and afforded materials for free and severe
comments. But it may well be doubted whether the distin-
guished statesman of South Carolina is justly liable to censure
upon either accusation. As regards the discontinuance of the
}
CHALLENGES AND DUET, S. 243
combat, it is in proof that he acted upon the opinion of the sur-
geons of both parties, who, as the result of a consultation, de-
clared his inability to proceed; while, in the matter of dress,
there is no evidence — as I am aware — that his silk frock had
more than a single and a common lining. That the surgeons
were right in their conclusion is manifest; for Mr. McDuffie's
wound, as already remarked, was the cause of serious physical
prostration his life long.
McILRAITH, Major, British army. See Marion, General
Francis.
McINTosh, LACKLAND. See Gwinnett, Button.
McKEE, F. S. See Murphey, Joseph. -
McKENZIE, Lieutenant. See Barrington, William.
McKIE, JAMES C. Challenge to William O. Eaton, Boston,
1852. McKie was held to bail in the sum of two thousand dol-
lars; his letter to Eaton was in these words : —
“SIR, - I demand satisfaction for the “cowardly” manner in which
you attacked me last evening. Were you a gentleman, I should send
a friend to wait upon you, but I would not compromise my friend's
character so much as to ask him to call on such a ‘disgrace’ to society.
I leave all the arrangements but one in your hands, and that one is the
‘time, which will be as soon as you can possibly make arrangements
for a meeting.”
McKNIGHT, JAMEs, a captain of marines, and Lieutenant
LAwson, of the navy of the United States. At Leghorn, in
1802. Both were officers of the frigate Chesapeake. McKnight
was killed ; his wife was a sister of Stephen Decatur; a captain
in the navy of the United States.
McLEAN. In England, 1750. Having a dispute with a Brit-
ish officer, at Putney Bowling-green, he challenged him; but the
officer, distrusting his respectability, declined the call. McLean
was soon afterward arrested for highway robbery. His father
was an Irish dean, and a brother was a minister of reputation.
After his detection, it was ascertained that he had robbed several
gentlemen of rank, and was one of two highwaymen who had
caused much fear in and about London.
McLeod, Lieutenant. See Macdonnell of Glengarry.
McNALLY, LEONARD. See Barrington, Sir Jonah. .

244 '. CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
McNAMARA, John. Challenge, in 1806, or the year following,
to Sir Samuel Romilly. The offence of Romilly was profes-
sional. In the time of Lord Eldon, a Miss Purcell had filed a
bill against McNamara, in the Court of Chancery, to set aside,
as fraudulent, certain deeds of estates in the West Indies, and
had obtained a decree with costs. On the succession of Lord Ers-
kine, McNamara petitioned for a rehearing. Romilly appeared
for Miss Purcell ; and while in the performance of his duty to
his client, received a hostile message, which, unlike Thurlow, in a
similar case, he declined. McNamara, remarks Sir Samuel,
“who had been concerned in the course of his life in several duels,
had vainly attempted during the hearing of the cause to intimidate
Miss Purcell's counsel from doing their duty. Some years afterwards,
having recovered from a dangerous illness, he wrote a letter to a friend
of mine, in which, after telling how near dying he had been, he added,
“but I was prepared to meet the event like a man of honor.’”
MEAD and WooDwARD. Both were celebrated physicians in
England at a time when “doctors met in consultation with drawn
swords.” They fought according to appointment, under the
gate of Gresham College. Woodward slipped and fell. “Take
your life,” exclaimed his antagonist. “Anything but your
physic,” replied the prostrate doctor.
MEATH, WILLIAM, ninth Earl of, was slain in a duel, year
1797. Unmarried, he was succeeded by his brother John.
MEDGE, an Irish lawyer, and finally a Baron. Three duels;
one with his own brother-in-law.
MELANTHUs, a Messenian prince, and the King of Boeotia. In
ancient history. In war, the armies of Athens and Boeotia met.
The king, who commanded the latter, proposed to Thymoetes,
his brother monarch, to decide the dispute between the two
States, by a combat between themselves. Thymoetes declined
the cartel; but Melanthus, “who had his fortune to seek,”
offered to become the Athenian king's champion, and was
allowed the honor. The Boeotian was slain. Melanthus ruled
Athens, as his reward; for Thymoetes was deposed, and his
family lost the succession.
MENDIzABAL, Prime Minister of Spain, and SENOR ISTURITz.
At or near Madrid, in 1835. The meeting was caused by an
altercation in the Chamber of Deputies. Isturitz retracted the
expression deemed offensive by the Minister, and the affair
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 245
\
ended, after the exchange of shots. Mendizabal soon after
resigned, and was succeeded by Isturitz.
MENEFEE, RICHARD, member of Congress from Kentucky.
See Cilley, Jonathan.
MICHIGAN : Constitutional provision : —
“Any inhabitant who may hereafter be engaged in a duel, either as
principal or accessory before the fact, shall be disqualified from holding
any office under the Constitution and laws of this State, and shall not
be permitted to vote at any election.”
MILANs DEL Bosch, Colonel. See Soule, Neville.
MILBANKE, RALPH, cup-bearer of Mary, Queen of Scotland.
In consequence of a duel in his native country, he fled to Eng-
land. Mark, his great-grandson, was created a Baronet, in
1661.
MILLER, Major. See Smith, Major.
MILLER, WILLIAM, junior, of the Philadelphia bar, and
CHARLEs G. HUNTER, midshipman in the navy of the United
States. In 1830, Miller was forced into the affair, in which
originally he appears to have had nothing to do except as peace-
maker. Three other officers of the navy were implicated in
the duel, namely, Lieutenants Edmund Byrne and Hampton
Westcott, and Passed Midshipman Charles H. Duryee.
Mr. Branch, the Secretary of the Navy, on learning the facts,
recommended that the names of the four officers be stricken
from the navy list. To this, the President replied in these
words : — *
“Let the above-named officers of the navy be stricken from
the roll. March 31, 1830. ANDREw JACKson.”
The matter was considered by the Legislature of Pennsylvania,
and the dismissal of the officers approved by both branches.
The President intended, it was thought at the time, to estab-
lish the precedent, that no duel, challenge, or defiance to a duel,
would thereafter be tolerated, on the part of the officers of the
navy or army, with persons in the private walks of life, if, under
any circumstances whatever, between themselves.
MILLs,
known. Mills was slain.
MISSISSIPPI : Constitutional provision : —
“The Legislature shall pass such laws to prevent the evil practice of
*
In England, last century. Antagonist un-

246 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
duelling as they may deem necessary, and may require all officers,
before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, to take the
following oath or affirmation : —
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I have not
been engaged in a duel, by sending or accepting a challenge to fight a
duel, or by fighting a duel, since the first day of January, in the year of
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, nor will I be so en-
gaged during my continuance in office. So help me God.”
MIssouri: Constitutional provision : — .ºr
“Any person who, after the ratification of this Constitution, shall be
engaged in a duel, either as principal, second, surgeon, accessory, or
abettor, or in giving, accepting, or knowingly carrying a challenge to
fight a duel, shall be disqualified from holding any civil or military ap-
pointment in this State; and if any person thus disqualified shall receive
an appointment, election, or commission, the same shall be void.
“It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by law for
the mode and manner in which the survivor of a duel, and his estate,
shall be rendered responsible to, and be charged with a compensation
for, the wife and children of the deceased whom he has slain.”
MITCHELL, DAVID B. See Hunter, William.
MITCHELL, SIR JoHN, Baronet. In early life, while an officer
in the Scotch Grays, he sent a challenge to the Duke of Marl-
borough, in consequence of some remarks of his Grace, in con-
tempt of Scotland ; for which he was dismissed from the army.
Subsequently, after succeeding to the title of baronet, he was
attainted. Still later, and in 1770, so utter was his poverty,
that he appeared in the streets of Edinburgh a common beggar.
MoAwIYAH, . . See Ali.
MoHUN, Lord. See Hamilton, Duke of
Monce1.ET, Mons. CHARLEs. See Angier, Mons. Emile.
MonTFoRT, Robert DE, and HENRY DE ESSEX. In England,
in 1158. A judicial duel. Essex was hereditary standard-
bearer of England; in a battle in Wales, he threw away the
royal standard, cried out that the king was slain, and fled.
Montfort charged that his conduct was the result of treasonable
intentions, and offered to prove his accusation by combat. Es-
sex denied the charge, and accepted the challenge. The duel
was witnessed by King Henry II. and all his court. Essex
was defeated, and expected to be put to death. The monarch
* spared his life, but confiscated his estate, and doomed him to the
habit and duties of a monk of Reading Abbey.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. *- 247
MontgomeRy and MACNAMARA. In England, 1803. The
former was colonel of the ninth regiment, British army; the lat-
ter, a captain in the British navy. This volume contains no case
which better illustrates the sin and folly of duelling. The two
gentlemen were riding in Hyde Park, accompanied by their dogs.
The animals quarrelled; and the testimony before the coroner's
inquest was, that the Colonel was requested by the Captain to
call his dog off, which he declined to }. and that the following
conversation ensued. . -
Montgomery. “If your dog hurts mine, I’ll knock him down.”
Macnamara. “Sir, if you knock my dog down, you must knock me
down also.”
Montgomery. “Why did you not dismount and take your dog
away ?” -
Bºnamara “I am an officer in his Majesty's navy, and unaccus-
tomed to such arrogant language.”
Montgomery. “ Sir, if you conceive yourself injured, you know where
I live: you ought to take care of your dog.”
Macnamara. “I shall do that without your permission.”
Colonel Montgomery, as he uttered the last words, gave Mac-
namara his card of address. Arrangements for a duel to adjust
the dispute, were immediate. They met in two hours, and both
rode to the ground selected with great speed, each striving to
arrive there first. They fought with pistols, at twelve paces.
Captain Barry, of the navy, acted as the friend of Macnamara;
Sir William Kier, as the second of Montgomery. It was agreed
that the principals should fire together. They did so, and both
were wounded. Montgomery fell without uttering a word;
rolled over two or three times, and groaned ; was carried to a
neighboring house, and expired in a few minutes.
Montgomery had served in Holland, Egypt, and Malta, with
distinguished reputation ; he was thought to be one of the hand-
somest men in the kingdom; and was a great favorite with the
Prince of Wales (George IV.) and the Duke of York. He was
but twenty-eight years of age.
Macnamara, equally distinguished, had fought several naval
battles; was also young, and about to be married to a lady with
a fortune of ten thousand pounds. As soon as his wound would
admit, he was tried at the Old Bailey for manslaughter. At the
close of the case for the government, he requested, in a subdued
tone, to read a paper in defence, and addressed the jury thus : —
“I appear before you with the consolation that my character has al-
ready been delivered, by the verdict of a grand jury, from the shocking

248 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
imputation of murder; and that, although the evidence against me was
laid before them without any explanation, or evidence of the sensations
which brought me into my present unhappy situation, they made their
own impression; and no charge of criminal homicide was found against
me. I was delivered at once from the whole effect of the indictment. I
therefore now stand before you upon the inquisition only, taken before the
coroner, upon the view of the body, under circumstances extremely
affecting to the minds of those who were to deliberate on the transac-
tion, and without the opportunity which the benignity of the law affords
me, at this moment, of repelling the inference of even sudden resent-
ment against the deceased, which is the foundation of this inquest of
manslaughter.
“The origin of the difference, as you see it in the evidence, was in-
significant. The heat of two persons, each defending an animal under
his protection, was natural, and could not have led to any serious con-
sequences. It was not the deceased's defending his own dog, nor his
threatening to destroy mine, that led me to the fatal catastrophe; it
was the defiance which most unhappily accompanied what was said.
Words receive their interpretation from the avowed intention of the
speaker. The offence was forced upon me by the declaration that he
invited me to be offended, and challenged me to vindicate the offence
by calling upon him for satisfaction. “If you are offended with what
has passed, you know where to find me.’ These words, unfortunately
repeated and reiterated, have over and over, and over again, been con-
sidered by criminal courts of justice as sufficient to support an indict-
ment for a challenge. The judgments of courts are founded upon the
universal understandings and feelings of mankind, and common candor
must admit that an officer, however desirous to avoid a quarrel, cannot
refuse to understand what even the grave judges of the law must inter-
pret as a provocation and a defiance. I declare, therefore, most sol-
emnly against the deceased; nothing, indeed, but insanity could have
led me to expose my own life to such immense peril, under the impulse
of passion from so inadequate a cause as the evidence before you ex-
hibits, when separated from the defiance which was the fatal source of
mischief, and I could well have overlooked that too, if the world, in its
present state, could have overlooked it also. I went into the field, there-
fore, with no determination or desire to take the life of my opponent, or
to expose my own. I went there in hopes of receiving some soothing
satisfaction for what would otherwise have exposed me in the general
feelings and opinions of the world. The deceased was a man of popular
manners, as I have heard, and with a very general acquaintance. I, on
the other hand, was in a manner a stranger in this great town, having
been devoted from my infancy to the duties of my profession in distant
seas. If, under these circumstances, the words which the deceased in-
tended to be offensive, and which he repeatedly invited to be resented,
had been passed by, and submitted to, they would have passed from
mouth to mouth, have been ever exaggerated at every repetition, and
my honor must have been lost. .
i
J
:
;
CHAL LENGES AND DUELS. 249
“Gentlemen, I am a captain in the British navy. My character you
can only hear from others; but to maintain my character and station, I
must be respected. When called upon to lead others into honorable
danger, I must not be supposed to be a man who had sought safety by
submitting to what custom has taught others to consider as a disgrace.
I am not presuming to urge anything against the laws of God or of this
land. I know that, in the eye of religion and reason, obedience to the
law, though against the general feelings of the world, is the first duty,
and ought to be the rule of action. But in putting a construction upon
my motives, so as to ascertain the quality of my actions, you will make
allowances for my situation. It is impossible to define in terms the
proper feelings of a gentleman; but their existence have supported this
happy country many ages, and she might perish if they were lost.
* Gentlemen, I will detain you no longer; I will bring before you
many honorable persons who will speak what they know of me in my
profession, and in private life, which will the better enable you to judge
whether what I have offered in my defence may safely be received by
you as truth. Gentlemen, I submit myself entirely to your judgment.
I hope to obtain my liberty through your verdict; and to employ it with
honor in the defence of the liberties of my country.”
At the conclusion of this address, several witnesses of the
highest rank were called to testify to his character; among them
were Nelson, Lords Holham, Hood, and Minto, Admiral Sir Hyde
Parker, Captain Trowbridge, and General Churchill. Nelson,
after bestowing high praise as to his professional standing, said,
“As I now stand before God and my country, I believe him to
be incapable of insulting man, woman, or child.” He was ac-
quitted. - *
MooRE, DUDLEY, and Cornet CASTINE. In 1714. Dudley
was slain ; he was of the noble house of Charleville.
MooRE, JAMEs, and
Parliament, the son of a baronet, and was slain.
MooRE, THOMAs, the poet, and FRANCIS JEFFREY, Lord Advo-
cate of Scotland. In England, 1806. Jeffrey, who at that time
was editor of the Edinburgh Review, wrote an article for that
work in which he attacked with great severity a volume of
Moore's poems and other writings. This was the cause of a
challenge from the poet to the critic. Moore, in the note which
he sent, purposely cut off all chance of a peaceable reconciliation.
After adverting to some assertion in the article, which accused
him of a deliberate intention to corrupt the readers of his book,
he wrote to Jeffrey : — & . . .
“To this, I beg leave to answer, you are a liar: yes, sir, a liar; and
\
BINGHAM. Moore was a member of

250 CHALLIENGES AND DUELS.
I choose to adopt this harsh and vulgar mode of defiance, in order to
prevent at once all equivocation between us, and to compel you to adopt,
for your own satisfaction, that alternative which you might otherwise
have hesitated in affording to mine.”
Jeffrey accepted the call. As the parties met on the ground,
they exchanged bows; and while the seconds were making the
necessary arrangements, they were left alone. Jeffrey spoke
and said, “What a beautiful morning it is.” “Yes,” replied
Moore, with a slight smile, “a morning made for better pur-
poses”; to which his antagonist made “a sort of assenting sigh.”
Their friends were slow in the task of preparation, and they con-
tinued to walk and talk together. Once they came in sight of
the seconds, and observed their operations, when Moore related,
as rather apropos to their own case, what Egan, the Irish barris-
ter remarked, while sauntering about on a similar occasion, in
reply to his antagonist, a fiery little fellow, who called out to him
angrily, as their friends were loading the pistols, to keep his
ground, “Don’t make yourself unaisy, my dear fellow,” said
Egan; “sure, is n’t it bad enough to take the dose, without being
by at the mixing up 2 ”
As Moore finished this story, the seconds, at last ready, placed
them at the stipulated distance, and put the weapons in their
hands. They raised their pistols, and stood waiting the signal to
fire, when the police rushed upon them, and conveyed them to
Bow Street, as prisoners.
This duel caused infinite amusement, for it was everywhere
stated that the pistols contained paper pellets instead of bullets.
Moore, in a letter to Lady Donegal, denied the truth of the re-
port, and promised a formal contradiction by the seconds. No
such document ever appeared. A paper was, however, drawn
up and signed by the friend of Jeffrey, and properly attested by
a magistrate; but the second of Moore declined to affix his name
to it, for reasons so unsatisfactory to the poet, as to occasion an
entire alienation for a period of thirty years. Moore and Jeffrey,
through the interposition of Rogers the poet, became reconciled,
and maintained the most friendly relations.
© ... •l
MooRE, THoMAs, and Lieutenant BUCK, of the United States
army. At or near Natchez, in 1803. Moore was slain.
MoRGAN, EDWARD. See Egerton, John.
MoRGAN, H. See Henderson, W.
MoRLEY, -. Challenge to SIR GEORGE THEOBALD, one of
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. t 251
the servants of the king of England, in 1634. Morley was fined
ten thousand pounds; his offence consisted in “reviling, chal-
lenging, and striking” Sir George.
MoRNINGTON, Earl of Challenge to the Earl of SHAFTES-
BURy, in 1853. The offence consisted in remarks of Shaftesbury
in the House of Lords, which he refused to explain. He declined
the call, and his course subsequently was stigmatized by Lord
Mornington as “absurdly impertinent.”
MoRRIs, ABRAHAM. See O’Leary, Cornelius.
MoRRIs, RoberT. See Dulany, Lloyd.
MoRRIson, John. See Leggett, William. --
MoRTON, Earl of See Bothwell, James Hepburn, Earl of
Moses, Jose.P.H. See Hickey, Colonel. **
MoUNTGARRET, Lord, and JoHN BYRNE, Attorney for the
Crown, Ireland. Byrne was wounded. When asked during his
illness how he felt at the time the bullet struck him, he replied,
“As if I had been punched by the mainmast of a man-of-war.”
MoUNTMORRIs, Lord, and FRANCIs HELY HUTCHINson, Col-
lector of the Customs, Dublin. In Ireland. His lordship rose
from dinner, entered a coach, and drove to the ground appointed
for the meeting, accompanied by the Marquis of Ely. His com-
panions at table, suspecting a duel, followed. Mountnorris was
wounded in the side, and fell. On rising, he had some conver-
sation with his antagonist, when both bowed, and separated.
MoURNEy, Mons. See Cournet.
MoUssIN, an opera-singer of France, in the last century.
This woman was the great heroine of the duello. She acquired
the use of the sword under the instruction of Serane, a fencing-
master of celebrity, and one of her lovers. Having killed “her
three men,” she “fled to Brussels, and became the mistress of
the Elector of Bavaria.”
Moyston, General. See Pomfret, Earl of
MUNCASTER, Lord. See Tollemache, John.
MURAT, JoACHIM, King of Naples. In his youth one of the
greatest duellists of modern times. He was intended for the
Church; and while designated as the “Abbé Murat,” he fell in
|
|
252 CHALLENGEs AND DUELs.
love with a pretty girl of Toulouse, fought a duel for her, and
carried her off. The notoriety of this affair put an end to all his
ecclesiastical hopes, and he entered the army. In a month after
becoming a soldier under Napoleon, he fought no less than six
duels; all of which were occasioned by political differences.
MURPHEy, Joseph, and F. S. McKEE. In Kentucky, 1852
Four shots were exchanged, and both were severely wounded.
It is said that a negro woman was killed while looking on.
MURRAy, of Tullibarden. See Bothwell, James Hepburn,
Earl of
NAISI, nephew of King Conner, of Ulster. However fabulous
the story of Deidre, the Helen of Ireland, it may be related very
briefly in these pages. S
Deidre was daughter of Feidhlim, the prime minister of Con-
ner. At her birth it was predicted by a seer of the time that
her beauty would inflame the hearts of princes and chieftains
with the fires of love, revenge, and jealousy, and prove disas-
trous to the kingdom. To avoid these calamities, the instant
death of the child was recommended by the holy man, to the dis-
pleasure of Conner, who declared that he would adopt her as his
own, and perhaps marry her when she should arrive at a suitable
age. He accordingly took her to one of his palaces or castles,
and permitted no one to see her but her governors, except by his
written order. She grew up very beautiful. In her fifteenth
year she witnessed from the windows of her apartment the chiv-
alric feats of the knights, as they contended for prizes before the
king and nobles. Naisi, the nephew of Conner, particularly ar-
rested her attention ; she became enamored of him, and found
means to obtain an interview. Naisi avowed his love for her.
An elopement was arranged and effected. They fled to Albania
and became the guests of the king, who, falling desperately in
love with Deidre, resolved to seduce her from her husband.
She communicated the king's first note to Naisi, who, indignant
at the insult, challenged the king to single combat. The call
was declined. Naisi and Deidre quitted the court of Albania.
Conner at last had tidings of their adventures, and was entreated
by his courtiers to forgive them, and to allow them to return to
Ulster. Conner, resolved to possess Deidre, assented, but sent
an emissary to murder Naisi. The plan succeeded ; but a civil
war was the result of the base deed; and Deidre not only re-
jected the addresses of her husband's murderer, but pined in
2.
i \
!
chaºs, AND DUELS. 253
grief, and soon, in her anguish, obliterated all traces of her
beauty. Conner, desisting for himself, finally gave her to Eogan,
the emissary employed to slay Naisi. She was forced into
Eogan's chariot, but, rather than become his mistress, she leaped
out and was killed.
NARVAEz, Señor. See Pavia, General.
NESLE, Lady de. See Polignac, Countess of
NEUHoF, THEoDoRE, of Westphalia. The readers of this vol-
ume have found an instance of sudden rise to fortune and dis-
tinction, following, as if by direct result, the killing of a fellow-
man in a duel, in the notice of John Law, the celebrated
financial projector, who, it will be recollected, fled from England
to the Continent, and engaged in operations which astonished the
world.
The case of Neuhof is quite similar. While a student at a
college of Jesuits, he slew in a duel a young man of distinguished
family, and fled to the Hague ; where, through the mediation of
the Spanish minister, he received a commission in the Spanish
army, destined to act against the Moors in Africa. He rose
rapidly; and in 1736 was crowned King of Corsica. But, like
Law, he fell. Driven from the throne by adverse events, he
sought refuge in England. Pursued thither by his creditors, he
was committed to prison. Released, finally, he died in 1756, of
grief. • z
NEVE, OLIVER DE. See Buckinghamshire, Sir Henry.
NEwcASTLE, Duke of. See Wales, Prince of
Nicolson, ANDREw. See Curry, Sir Piers de.
NICUESA, See Ojeda.
NIENKERKE, Count, and PIERRE BONAPARTE, a nephew of the
Emperor Napoleon. At or near Paris, 1851, with swords. The
duel was occasioned by a previous duel between a brother of
Bonaparte and a son of Rossi. The Count was wounded in the
thigh, when the seconds interfered, and declared the combat at
an end. . t
Nixon, Colonel HENRY G. In Georgia, in 1829. A friend
who accompanied him to the ground wrote his father thus : —
“There was an incident in the occurrence of the contest I cannot
fail to record. After your son received the most deadly and severe
wound, he fired his pistol, and, keeping erect, grasped his other pistol,

22 \
254 CHALLENGE ANb DUELS.
|
|
|
and died in the attitude of manly résistance and determined purpose of
character. In life and death he was noble, brave, magnanimous. I shall,
at a more leisure moment, publish such a notice of our friend as his high
claims to distinction demand, and my own feelings would dictate.”
A gentleman at Augusta said, in a letter to a correspondent: —
“We had a show here two or three days ago. A party from Cam-
den came here to fight a duel; and, after preparing themselves, went to
the ground at noonday, through Broad Street, with as much parade
as if Lafayette had been coming. Carriages, gigs, sulkies, and horse-
men following to witness the bloody deed. One of the combatants was
killed instantly; the other ran as hard as he could to the river, and
crossed. The magistrates were close after to arrest him, and contem-
plated petitioning Governor Forsyth to demand the gentleman from
the Governor of South Carolina. The late Governor of that State was
Second to the deceased.”
NoAILLEs, Wiscount de. See Barnave, Ant. Pierre Jos.
Marie. -
No1RMoUTIER, Mons. See Frettes, La.
NorBURy, Lord, Chief Justice of Court of Common Pleas. His
family name was John Toler. He used to boast that he “began
the world with fifty pounds and a pair of hair-trigger pistols.”
It is a fact, says a contemporary, that these “pistols” were the
immediate cause of his elevation to the bench. Lord Norbury
founded two peerages, and was the testator of an enormous for-
tune. As a wit, he had wide celebrity.
Norfolk, THOMAs Mowbray, Duke of. See Henry IV. of
England. * -
NoFRIs, Cardinal. See Macedo, a Jesuit. t
NoTTINGHAM, Thomas HowARD, Earl of See Essex, Earl of
~ Nourse. In England, 1741. He was a gambler. He had
a quarrel with Lord Windsor, for saying that a member of Par-
liament, and his lordship's friend, “only pretended to be ill.”
He sent Lord Windsor a challenge, which was declined. He
went home in a rage, and cut his own throat.
NUGENT, JoHN, of California. He seems to have fought once
in 1852, and again in 1853. The incidents of the first combat
are related by the San Francisco Whig. The writer, after em- .
barking in a steamer,
“learned that the preliminaries of a duel had been arranged between
John Nugent, editor of the Herald, and John Cotter, Alderman of the

Y. *
|
t
!
CHALLENGES AND DUELs. 255
t t
Fourth Ward. The causes which led to this encounter are well known
to the community and need nº repétition. The principals had gone to
Contra Costa the evening prèvioas. The surgeons, seconds, and nu-
merous friends of both parties were on board the steamer, which arrived
at the wharf about half past eleven. The hour for the duel was fixed
at twelve. Immediately after the landing, a scramble ensued for horses
and carriages, and in a few moments nearly two hundred persons were
in full gallop for the field, which was understood to be about two miles
distant. At five minutes before twelve, Mr. Cotter and friends were on
the ground, but owing to some misunderstanding, Mr. Nugent did not
arrive until half past two o'clock. As soon as Mſ. Nugent arrived, the
ground was selected, distance (ten paces) measured, pistols loaded, and
preliminaries arranged. The seconds of Mr. Nugent won the word.
At ten minutes before three, the first shots were fired, but without effect,
and were simultaneously discharged. At the second discharge, both
evidently endeavoring to reserve, Nugent fired first, missed, and, un-
bending to cock his pistol the third time, received Cotter's second ball
in the left thigh, producing a compound fracture of the limb. Had he
not thrown his leg from the line, the shot would have passed by without
effect. On receiving the ball Nugent fell, and was at once in the hands
of the surgeons, Doctors Hastings, H. M. Gray, Bowie, and Mills.
Each party displayed all the coolness, nerve, and bravery that men
could upon such an occasion. The ball was extracted, and the wounded
party brought to the city.”
The second affair was with Alderman Hayes, who was ag-
grieved by statements which appeared in the Herald. This
duel was with rifles, at twenty paces. Nugent fell at the second
fire, severely wounded. A large number of spectators, it is
said, “raised a savage yell” as they saw the result.
NUNEz. In Mexico, year 1521. A Mexican of great prowess,
and armed with sword and buckler, defied the Spaniards to meet
him in single fight. Nunez, a young page of Cortés, obtained
permission to accept the challenge. The struggle was desper-
ate ; but the page slew his antagonist, and bore to his master's
feet the spoils of his victory.
O. and MR. P. In 1780. Both belonged to Colonel May-
land's regiment of dragoons, in the army of the Revolution.
The day before the duel, they were “on the most intimate terms
of friendship.” O: killed his antagonist on the spot, and was
himself dangerously wounded. The duel was caused by a “triv-
ial misunderstanding.” The survivor “discovered no sorrow,”
no “remorse.” The story is related by Thächer, with the ini-
tial letters here used. - -

256 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
2.
O’CALLAGAN, an Irish counsellor of the last century. When
Lord Clanmorris horsewhipped Curran in a public street, re-
marks Barrington, O'Callagan acted as pacificator, and prevented
a hostile meeting ; but his own brains were literally scattered
about the ground, soon afterward, by an attorney with whom he
fought a duel.
O'Connel.L, DANIEL, and D'EstERRE. In 1815. O'Connell,
in one of his many speeches, called the corporation of Dublin
“a beggarly corporation.” D'Esterre, a member of that body,
treated the sneer as a personal affront, and fastened a quarrel on
the offender. O'Connell, anxious to avoid a call, declared re-
peatedly that he intended nothing personal to D'Esterre. They
met at Bishop's Court, with pistols, at twelve paces. O'Connell
said to Counsellor Phillips on the ground: “This seems to me
not a personal, but a political affair. I am obnoxious to a party,
and they adopt a false pretence to cut me off. I shall not sub-
mit to it. They have reckoned without their host, I promise you.
I am one of the best shots in Ireland at a mark, having, as a
public man, considered it a duty to prepare, for my own protec-
tion, against such unprovoked aggression as the present.” D’Es-
terre made a short speech on the ground also, in which he
disclaimed all hostility to his Catholic countrymen. He was
supposed to be an unerring marksman. As he took his station,
he crossed his pistols upon his bosom, “ somewhat theatrically.”
The parties, by the terms arranged, were at liberty to discharge
their weapons at pleasure, after a signal. They fired almost
together. D'Esterre fell, mortally wounded. Not long after-
ward, a dispute arose between O'Connell and Sir Robert Peel,
which led to an appointment. O'Connell, in his latter years, de-
clined duelling. He said, in the House of Commons, that, “ hav-
ing blood upon his hands, he had registered a vow in heaven.”
His enemies accused him of cowardice, and insisted even
that his want of courage impelled him to fight D’Esterre. What-
ever the truth, the reason which he assigned was sufficient.
There was “blood upon his hands"; and it is admitted by
those who enjoyed his confidence, that he endured much anguish
in consequence, to the latest hour of his life. See, Peel, Sir
Robert, and also Stevenson, Andrew, -
O'ConnELL, MoRGAN. See Alvanley, Lord, and also D'Is-
raeli, Benjamin.
O'DonAHOE, PATRICK. See Treanor, Barnard S.
! .* ...,
*** -------a------. --- -.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 257
OHIO : Constitutional provision : —
“No person who shall hereafter fight a duel, assist in the same as
second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge therefor, shall
hold any office in this State.”
OJEDA. Challenge to Nicuesa, in the year 1509. Both were
“Companions of Columbus,” and, subsequently, rival governors
of San Domingo. To adjust a dispute between them, Ojeda,
who could fight better than he could argue, proposed a single
combat. His rival, though brave, was disinclined to use his
sword in such an affair, and, acquainted with the poverty of
Ojeda, suggested, as a preliminary to the duel, that each should
furnish a sum of money (equal to about twenty-five thousand
dollars) to be the prize of the victor. This proposition gave a
temporary check to the fiery valor of Ojeda, as intended. Juan
de la Cosa interposed, and put an end to the contemplated
meeting.
O'LEARy, CoRNELIUs, of Raleigh, County of Cork, Ireland.
Challenge to Abraham Morris, of the same county. For the
act, he was proclaimed a “Tory,” and shot down by the mili-
tary. He had been an officer in the Hungarian service. His
wife was Ellen O'Connell, a relative of Daniel, the “Irish
Agitator.” -
ONEBy, Major. See Gower, William.
ORLEANs, Louis, Duke of Challenge, in 1402, to King
Henry IV. of England. Isabella of Valois, and daughter of
Charles VI. of France, became the bride of Richard II. of Eng-
land, when a mere child, and in the eighth year of her age. In
the civil war which followed, Richard was deposed. In the year.
1400 he died, probably by the hands of assassins. Isabella was
a widow at thirteen. Henry IV., who succeeded her husband,
desired to promote a match between her and his son ; but she
rejected the overture with horror, for to the house of Lancaster
she owed her many sorrows, and her widowhood. Isabella
finally returned to her native country. The Duke of Orleans,
anxious that she should marry his promising heir, undertook to
avenge her wrongs. He sent a challenge to Henry, defying
him as the plunderer of the young Queen and the murderer of
her husband, and offered to meet and fight him in the lists. The
monarch declined. “He knew of no precedent,” he said,
“which offered the example of a crowned king entering the
s
*

258 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
lists to fight a duel with a subject, however high the rank of that
subject might be.”
ORLIFF, ALExIs. See Potemkin, Prince.
OSBoFN, Lieutenant Marine Corps U. S. See Vandyke.
OssoRy, Lord, and Lord CLARENDON. In the reign of Charles
II. of England. The quarrel was political, and arose upon a
measure in Parliament, for the prohibition of the importation of
Irish cattle.
O'SULLIVAN and CALDwell. In Canada, in 1819. The for-
mer an attorney, the latter a physician. An article appeared
in a Montreal newspaper from the pen of Caldwell, which con-
cerned the honor and character of O'Sullivan. Both were
severely wounded.
Oswald, Colonel. See Carey, Mathew.
Oxford, Earl of See Sidney, Sir Philip.
PAGET, Lord, and Captain CADoGAN. In 1809. The story is
long and sad. His lordship entertained “a romantic attachment”
for the wife of the Hon. H. Wellesley, which he sought in vain to
overcome in the turmoils of the war on the Continent ; and dur-
ing the retreat to Corunna he was so reckless of life as to ac-
quire the reputation of “a rash and adventurous gallantry.” The
husband recovered £20,000 damages in a suit of crim. con.
His lordship, as another “incident’’ of his passion, was called
out by Captain Cadogan, whose wife was a sister of Lady
Wellesley.
PALATINE, Elector. See Turenne, Viscount and Marshal.
PALMER, Hon. , and HoN. GEORGE Col. Es. Prince Ed-
ward Island, 1851. It appears, that, at an election, Mr. Palmer
called Mr. Coles “a coward,” for declining a challenge sent by
a servant, who entered Coles's house in his shirt-sleeves. Coles
demanded a recall of the offensive remark, or a meeting. The
latter alternative was accepted, and the parties met. Palmer
fired without effect. Coles refused to fire, and threw his pistol
into the air. Palmer had held the office of Solicitor-General of
the colony.
PARIs, Robert of, a French baron. In the year 1097 he gave
a general challenge to meet him in single combat. He com-
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 259
plained that he could meet no one who would accept his univer-
sal cartel.
PARK, J. W., and M. C. BRAZER. In California, 1854. Both
members of the Legislature. Neither harmed.
PARKER, HoN. RoBERT. See Coffin, John.
PATTERson, , Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Ire-
land. In Barrington’s time. Three duels while at the bar; one
with guns, another with swords. He wounded his antagonists
in all.
PAUL, Emperor of Russia. In the year 1800, and but a little
time previous to his unnatural death, he published a sort of mani-
festo, in which the sovereigns of Europe were invited to settle
their disputes, at St. Petersburg, in a combat, with Pitt, Bernstoff,
and Talleyrand as seconds. The idea was grand.
PAUL, JAMEs. See Burditt, Sir Francis.
PAULETT, Lord HENRy. See Grenville, George.
PAULETT, Lord. See Marlborough, Duke of
See Sheridan, Richard Brinsley.
PAUMIER,
PAVIA, General, and the Señor NARVAEz. In Spain, in
1851, or early in 1852. Both gentlemen of high consideration
at the Spanish court. A long quarrel existed between them.
Pavia gave the challenge. Four general officers acted as sec-
onds. Mutual explanations terminated the dispute finally, with-
out the use of weapons.
PEACHY, A. C., and JAMEs BLAIR. In California, 1852. The
first a member of the legislature, the latter an officer of the
navy.
PEcquigny, the Duke of. In England, in 1764. This per-
sonage, says Walpole, “seems a genius of the wrong sort.”
Lord Garlis (afterwards the Earl of Galloway) handed his part-
ner down to supper at Lord Milton's ball, to the great displeasure
of the Duke, who was “on the point of a duel,” to revenge the
impertinence of the English nobleman. The same year, we
find him involved in an affair with Mons. Wirette, “an equivocal
being,” with whom the Duke gambled and was a loser. Words
occurred at the opera, and the Duke asked the Marquis of Tavis-
tock to “see him fight Virette”; but the Marquis declined to

260 - CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
be a witness. To prevent the duel, Mons. de Guerchy sent the
Duke away ; but he met Virette at Dover, begged his pardon,
owned himself in the wrong, and then fought him. The com-
bat was with swords, and the Duke received four wounds in the
arm. The titled “genius of the wrong sort,” and the “equivo-
cal being” returned to London, “with their honors as white as
snow.”
PEEL, SIR RoPERT, Prime-Minister of England, and DANIEL
O'Connell, the Irish “Liberator.” Probably about the year
1830. The offence was on the part of O'Connell, while Peel
was Secretary for Ireland, and consisted, it is believed, in the
flippant remark, that the Secretary was “the son of a cotton-
jenny.” The fact of an agreement for a hostile meeting became
public, when the authorities interposed ; but the engagement was
renewed, and some place on the Continent designated. As,
however, O'Connell was arrested in London, and held to bail,
they did not meet.
PELLEw, EDwARD, and THEoPHILUs WALSH. At or near
Paris, in 1819. Both were officers in the British army, and in
the same regiment. Pellew was killed ; he was of the noble
house of Exmouth.
PENDLETON, NATHANIEL. See Hamilton, Alexander.
PENNANT, PETER, an officer in the army of Anne, Queen of
England. Challenge to Sir Thomas Prendergast. Sir Thomas
was Colonel of Pennant's regiment, and was invited to a combat,
it would seem, without any specific offence, but on the general
ground of that officer’s “disgust.” The call was declined,
when Pennant resigned his commission. *
PENNINGTON, Captain. See Tolemache, John.
PENRUDDock, GEORGE. In 1557. He was standard-bearer
under the Earl of Pembroke, in the army of Queen Mary. In
the battle of St. Quintin he engaged in single combat with a
French nobleman, and gained much renown for his victory over
him. His second son bore the title of Sir Edward Penruddock.
PEPE, General, and General CARAscosA. In England, in
1823. They met near Kew bridge, with swords. Pepe dis-
abled his opponent by a thrust in the right shoulder.
PERcy, Edward. See Constable, Philip.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 261
PERRY, OLIVER H., captain in the navy of the United States.
See Heath, John.
PERRy,
See Bynum,
PERRy, See Soule, Neville.
PETIT, JoHN, and GEORGE RousseII. Near Bologne, in 1851.
The parties were Frenchmen or Belgians, but lived in England.
They went to the Continent, with seconds, under a written agree-
ment to fight a duel d mort, or a duel in which one should fall.
The first fire was to be at twenty-five paces, the second at
twenty, the third at fifteen ; and thus reducing the distance at
each fire five paces, they were to grapple, at last, breast to
breast. Petit was shot through the heart, at fifteen paces; his
dead body was left on the field.
PETTIs, SPENCER. See Biddle, Thomas.
PEyToN, SIR RoBERT. Challenge, in 1681, to Mr. Williams,
Speaker of the House of Commons. Sir Robert, “having been
brought upon his knees,” and expelled the House of Commons,
sent a message to the Speaker, who, instead of answering it,
complained to the Council. Sir Robert was committed to the
Tower.
PHILIP/II., King of France. Challenge, in 1196, to Rich-
ard I. (“of the lion heart”), King of England. Philip pro-
posed that each should select five champions to fight in lists,
for trial of all matters of controversy between them. Richard
accepted the offer, on condition that either king might be of the
number. To this Philip objected. The quarrel dates from
1191, when both kings were engaged in the Crusade ; they took
the city of Acre, when Philip returned home in anger. Open
war was declared between the two kingdoms in the year 1194.
PHILLIPs, Captain, and SHEPPARD. Both were officers
in the British service in India, and were in garrison at Bombay.
The two gentlemen quarrelled about a very trivial matter, and,
after weeks of correspondence, agreed upon terms of a duel.
They fought at night, by the light of a lantern held by a black
servant, and without seconds. Phillips was killed on the spot.
Sheppard was tried, and convicted of manslaughter. Phillips
was the offender, one witness stating that he “ thought” he had
heard him speak lightly of Sheppard, on some occasion or other.
262 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
PHILLIPs, Captain. See Sterne, Roger.
PHILLIPs, CHARLEs, the Irish orator, and MR. HENRIQUEz. In
1819. A bloodless affair. They met, exchanged shots, shook
hands, and parted.
PHILLIPs, HENRY. See Woodbridge, Benjamin.
PHRYNoN. See Pittacus.
PICON, Mons. See Soule, Pierre.
PIERson, ——. See Cannon,
PISCATORY, Mons. See Aguesseau, Mons. Segur d’.
PITT, the Right Honorable WILLIAM, Prime Minister of Eng-
land, and George TIERNEY, a member of Parliament, Treasurer
of the Navy, President of the Board of Control, and Master of
the Mint. In 1798, on Putney Common. During a debate in
Parliament, Pitt imputed factious motives to Tierney, and said
that his course proved “intemperate rashness rather than per-
sonal courage.” Two shots were exchanged without effect on
either side. Pitt fired a third time in the air, when the parties
separated.
PITTACUs, of Mitylene, and PHRyNoN, general of the Athe-
nian army. Before Christ, the year 547. The inhabitants of
Mitylene, being at war with the Athenians, placed Pittacus in
command of their forces. To spare the blood of his countrymen,
he offered single combat to Phrynon, who accepted, and was
slain.
Pizarro, HERNANDo. See Alvarado, JDon Diego.
PLowDEN, Captain, of the family of Plowdens of Plowden,
Northamptonshire, England. He was killed in a duel, previous
to the year 1829. His father was an eminent chancery bar-
rister, and author of a History of Ireland ; one of his sisters
married Lord Dundonald.
Poland. In 1851. At Posen, a Polish school-boy, seventeen
years of age — the account is — shot a school-fellow of thir-
teen, in a duel, and was condemned to eighteen months' impris-
onment. Three other boys, between the ages of thirteen and
fifteen, who acted as seconds, and umpire, were tried, and
acquitted.
PoliGNAc, the Countess of, and the Lady DE NESLE. In
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 263
France, during the last century. These noble ladies, rivals in
love, actually fought with pistols, for the honor of the possession
of the handsome Duc de Richelieu.
PolyNICEs, Prince of Thebes. See Eteocles.
PoMFRET, the Earl of. According to Walpole, his lordship,
in his freaks of madness or insanity, imagined that he was often in-
sulted; but he generally selected such persons to answer “as looked
unlikely to resent,” and would refuse his calls. At one time, he
indulged the habit of inviting “gentlemen in the play-house, who
he pretended had made faces at him.” Once, unfortunately, he
fixed upon General Moyston, for having laughed at him at Court,
and demanded a meeting in Hyde Park. The General “denied
having ever seen him there.” “O then it is very well,” said
Pomfret. “No, it is not,” replied Moyston. “You have dis-
turbed me when I had been in bed but three hours, and now you
shall give me satisfaction.” The Earl begged to be excused.
Walpole relates, also, that a Mr. Robinson used to say publicly
that he often got Lord Pomfret as far as Hyde Park Corner, but
never beyond. *
After an interval of several years, the Earl's mania for chal-
lenging persons by whom he fancied he had been wronged re-
turned. In 1780 he gave an invitation to the Duke of Grafton
for an affront offered to him a long time previously, and while
his Grace was a minister of the crown. The Duke declared his
innocence, and put him off; but he came back two days after-
wards, and in a second message renewed his demand for satis-
faction. The Duke, instead of fighting, turned him over to a
magistrate.
Pontg|BAUD, Mons. See Bouteville, Count Francis de.
PoPE, HENRY C., and JoHN T. GRAY. In Indiana, 1849.
Both were citizens of Louisville, Kentucky. Pope had been a
captain in the army of the United States; he was the challenger.
Gray selected shot guns, loaded with single balls, at twenty
paces. Pope fell, mortally wounded : he was placed on a bed,
and carried homeward in a boat: he expired before the boat
arrived at Louisville.
gr
PoRTER, THOMAs. See Bellasses, Sir Henry.
Potem KIN, a Russian Prince and Field Marshal, and ALExis
ORLIFF. Probably soon after the year 1776. These person-
f
264 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
ages were rivals for the favor of the Empress Catharine II.
He won the affections of his royal mistress, to the exclusion not
only of Orliff and his brother, but of all other competitors.
Arrogant in his sucéess, the Orliffs hated him, both because
of his manners and their discomfiture. In a duel with Alexis
he lost an eye. The Empress, after this affair, loved him better
than ever before. He gained complete control of the public
affairs of Russia.
Pouchkin, the poet, and the Baron de HECKEREN. The
Baron was the seducer of Pouchkin’s wife. The injured husband
was slain. The survivor, an officer in the Russian Imperial
Guard, was dismissed the service, and compelled to abandon his
country; in 1852 he was employed by Louis Napoleon on a
special embassy to Russia.
Powell, A. See Falkland, Lord Viscount.
Powers,
, a Sergeant. See Colbee, a Corporal.
PRENDERGAST, SIR THoMAs. See Pennant, Peter.
PRINGLE, of Crighton. See Scott, Walter.
PUDENs, the Roman. See Jonathan, the Jew.
PUNONRosTRo, Count of. See Soule, Neville.
Purefoy, WILLIAM Poe, Lieutenant, British army. See
Roper, Colonel. -
, PUTNAM, ISRAEL, a general in the army of the Revolution.
wo affairs of “Old Put,” during the war, are recorded by his
biographer, which require notice in these pages. Neither add to
his fame: since “he was bound to fight “according to usage,”
or decline the calls. *
The first was with an American officer, whom, without
design, he offended at table. The officer demanded instant
satisfaction. Putnam agreed to meet him the next morning,
without seconds. The officer repaired to the spot designated,
armed with sword and pistols, and, before taking his place, was
greeted with a shot from Putnam's gun, at thirty rods. As
Putnam was reloading his piece, the officer approached, and
asked, “What are you about to do 2 Is this the conduct of an
American officer, and a man of honor P’” “What am I about to
do ’’’ replied the General. “A pretty question to put to a man
whom you intended to murder! I’m about to kill you: and if
CHALLENGES AND DUELS, - 265
you don’t beat a retreat in less time than it takes old Heath
to hang a Tory, you are a gone dog.” The officer turned and
fled.
The second was with a British officer, and a prisoner on
parole. Offended at some remarks of the General, a challenge
was given and accepted. As the challenged party, Putnam,
agreed to select the weapon, and appear at a place which he
named, with arms for both. The officer found him there, seated
near a barrel, - apparently containing powder, — smoking his
I O 62.
p ºrie General requested him to take a seat on the other side
of the cask ; and, remarking that “there was an equal chance
for both of them,” set fire to a match which communicated with
the contents of the barrel. The officer looked at the match a
moment, as the fire approached the supposed powder, and then
departed.
As he retired, Putnam exclaimed : “You are just as brave
a man as I took you to be ; this is nothing but a barrel of onions,
with a few grains of powder on the head, to try you by. But
you don’t like the smell.”
QUELUs, See Antraguet, º
RADCLIFFE, RoBERT, of Foxdenton Hall, County of Lancaster,
England, and a captain in the Duke of Monmouth's regiment,
and In 1685. Radcliffe was slain, and his remains
buried in Talton Chapel. r
RAMSAY, DAVID. See Rea, Lord Donald.
RAMSAY, Sir GEORGE, and Captain MACRAE. I suppose, in the
latter part of the last century. Sir George fell ; leaving no issue,
he was succeeded by his brother, who died in 1807.
See Fow, -.
RANDoLPH, JoHN. See Clay, Henry.
RAwdon, Lord. See Richmond, Duke of
REA, C., and W. P. Evans. In 1854, in Mississippi, with
rifles. The former an editor; the latter a lawyer. Evans the
challenger. At the third or fourth fire Rea was shot in both
thighs. .
REA, DoNALD, Lord, and DAvid RAMSAY. In 1631. This
was a judicial duel. The arrangements were made by the Lord
23
RANDALL,
26°
266 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
High Constable and Earl Marshal of England. But King
Charles revoked his commission, and effected an accommodation
without bloodshed. .
READY, W. G., and A. L. SNow DEN. In Pennsylvania, in
1854, with rifles. Both students of Jefferson College. Ready .
the challenger.
RecALDE, DoN INIGo DE. See Loyola, Ignatius.
Recton, Colonel WHARton. See Conway, General.
REED, General. See Allstoms. -
REED, Judge. See Brooks, Walter.
REEve, ZEPHANIAH. Challenge, probably about the year 1734,
to Robert Henley, afterwards Lord Keeper, Lord Chancellor,
Baron Henley, and Earl of Northington. Reeve was a Quaker;
and provoked and offended at Henley’s course of cross-examina-
tion while he was on the stand as a witness in a court at Bristol,
he so far forgot the pacific tenets of his sect, as to send him a
message, after the manner of the world, demanding honorable
satisfaction, or an apology.
Henley “was by no means wanting in courage, but, sensible
that he had exceeded the bounds of professional license, and
anxious to escape the ridicule of going into the field with such an
antagonist, very readily adopted the latter alternative.” The
“broad-brimmed ” duellist dined with Henley, after he became
Lord Chancellor, in company with a party of noblemen and
members of the House of Commons, when his Lordship related
the story, to the great diversion of his guests.
RETz, Cardinal de, of France. He flourished in the seven-
teenth century, when, according to his own account, challenges
passed at the altar among officiating priests of noble birth. His
amours and affairs of honor were numerous. After taking
orders, and while known as the Abbé de Gondil, he was engaged
in two duels in one day.
RIBAUMont, EUSTACE DE, a French knight. See Edward III.,
King of England. -
RICHARD I., King of England, surnamed “Caeur de Lion.”
Challenge, in 1191 or the year following, to lsaac, Emperor of
Cyprus. In battle, Richard, dashing into the ranks of the enemy,
where Isaac was conspicuous by his gilded armor and royal in-
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 267
signia, cried out, “What ho! lord Emperor! Come, if thou
darest, and meet me hand to hand.” But Isaac turned the rein
of his horse, and fled in advance of his flying army. (See also
Philip II. of France.)
RICHARD II., King of England. Two challenges; one in the
day of power, the other in his fall. The first to Charles, King
of France, towards the close of the fourteenth century. Richard
claimed the French crown, and proposed to terminate the con-
troversy with his rival, first, by a personal combat between them-
selves; second, by a combat between themselves, with three of
their uncles, on each side ; or, third, by a general battle. But
Charles disliked all, and accepted of neither. In the year 1399
the monarch was imprisoned and deposed. In the Tower, pre-
vious to resigning the crown, he had an interview with the Duke
of Lancaster (who succeeded him as Henry IV.) and with several
other noblemen. After a fierce quarrel with the Duke Aumerle,
who called Richard “a liar,” and threw down his bonnet as a
defiance, the fallen king turned to Henry, and asked, “Why
am I in confinement, and under a guard of armed men, and
what do you mean to do with me 2 ” Henry replied, “You
are my lord and king, but the Council of the realm have deter-
mined to keep you in confinement till the decision of Parlia-
ment.” Richard, swearing a great oath, demanded his wife :
told in answer, that he could not see the Queen, he indulged in
the most passionate exclamations; and finally, casting his bonnet
at the feet of the nobles present, as a gage, offered to fight any
four of them. His challenge was not heeded.
RICHARD III. and the Earl of RICHMOND, who succeeded as
Henry VII. Battle of Bosworth, in 1485. Ere the field was
lost, Richard determined to engage his rival in single combat, in
the hope that the death of either would decide the day ; and,
having slain Sir William Brandon, the Earl's standard-bearer,
and dismounted Sir John Cheyney, he finally executed his pur-
pose so far as to commence the contest, which, fortunately per-
haps for the Earl, was interrupted by Sir William Stanley, who
with a body of troops surrounded the tyrant, and put an end to
his guilty life. Shakespeare refers to the incident in the well-
known passage, in which Richard speaks for the last time : —
“Slave, I have set my life upon a cast,
And I will stand the hazard of the die;
/

268 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
I think there be six Richmonds in the field;
Five have I slain to-day, instead of him: –
A horse ! a horse ! my kingdom for a horse !”
RICHARDson, THOMAS R., of Ohio, and Richardson
was a lieutenant in the United States army, and was killed.
RICHEBOURG, Mons., an officer of dragoons in the army of
France. A duellist of much notoriety. His career as a mili-
tary man was at last interrupted, and he was compelled to aban-
don Europe. He came to America about the year 1716, and
his name appears at that period in the annals of Louisiana.
RICHELIEU, LOUIS FRANÇois ARMAND DE PLESSIs, Duc de,
Marshal of France. An extraordinary being from first to last.
While an infant (in 1696) he was so small and feeble, that his
life was preserved by keeping him in a box filled with cotton.
As he grew to manhood, he acquired the showy graces which
captivate persons of frivolous minds, and became the darling of
the ladies of the French court, and some of them fought duels
for the possession of his person. Richelieu was destitute of
honor, morals, and religion : he was a reckless duellist, and a
systematic and heartless seducer. In a word, he was one of the
most profligate and corrupt men of the profligate and corrupt
courts of his times. But he lived until the year 1788, and to
the age of ninety-two.
His duel with the Count de Gace, in 1716, was among his
earliest and desperate encounters : both parties were committed
to the Bastille. His licentious pleasures “were now and then "
interrupted by affairs with the sword, for a considerable part of
his subsequent career. While an inmate of the Bastille, the
third time, in 1719, and for a political offence, female influence
obtained his removal from a dungeon to comfortable apartments,
and permission to take a daily walk on the top of his prison.
As he paced the ramparts, a procession of elegant carriages,
filled with women, the high-born dames of France, — who
notoriously were or had been his mistresses, passed slowly back-
ward and forward in front of the spot where he was, and an
intercourse of signs was kept up between him and these unscru-
pulous fair ones, until the hour allotted expired. Six years later,
when restored to favor, and sent ambassador to Vienna, the
horses of his retinue (of seventy-five carriages) were shöd with
silver, in such a manner as that the shoes should fall off, to be
* *
CHALLENGES AND DUELS, 269
picked up by the populace. And yet Richelieu was an ignorant
man, and could not even spell correctly.
RICHMOND, Duke of, and Lord LAUDERDALE. In England,
1792. His lordship, a few days previously, fought with General
Benedict Arnold.
RICHMOND, Duke of, and the Duke of York. At Wimbledon,
England, in 1789, with pistols. The Duke of Richmond at this
time was known as Colonel Lenox. The difficulty related to some
words said to have been spoken at Daubigny’s Club, of which
Lenox required of his royal highness an explanation or retraction.
The Duke of York refused, but expressed a willingness to waive
the privileges of his rank. The two noble combatants were ac-
companied to the ground by Lords Rawdon and Winchelsea,
who certified that “both behaved with the utmost coolness and
intrepidity.” At the word “Fire 1* Lenox obeyed, and his bullet
grazed the hair of the royal Duke, who discharged his weapon
in the air.
Mr. Rush (when Minister from the United States to Eng-
land) was told by Mr. Coke, that the Queen, on the evening fol-
lowing the duel between her son and Lenox (as related above),
“ met the latter in one of the court circles, and was more than
usually gracious, offering him her hand as she first addressed
him.”
The affair with the Duke of York, according to Barrington,
involved Lenox in another duel. It seems that Theophilus Swift,
an Irish lawyer who practised in the English courts, took it into
his head that the meeting in question was a personal offence to
every gentleman in England, and that every man who loved the
reigning family was bound to challenge Lenox, until he should
be killed. Acting upon this strange conceit, he sent a message
to Lenox, for having the arrogance to fire at the king's son.
Lenox had never seen or heard of Swift, but still accepted the
call. In the combat, the barrister was shot through the body;
was carried home ; made his will ; expected to die. But he
recovered ; and a guest at the first levee of Lenox (who mean-
time had succeeded to the title of Duke of Richmond) as the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland,” he said, on being presented, that “the
* He was appointed to Ireland in 1807, and was then a general in the
army, and enjoyed great popularity in the service: i."; he was
Governor-General of British America, and died at Montreal, Canada, in
1819.
23 * . .

270 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
last time he had the honor of waiting on his grace, as Colonel
Lenox, The received better entertainment, for that his grace had
given him a ball !” “True,” replied the Duke, with a smile,
“ and now that I am Lord Lieutenant, the least I can do is to
give you a brace of them ’’; and in due time Swift was invited
to attend two balls at his grace's palace.
RICHMOND, Earl of. See Richard III.
RIDGwAY, RoberT. See Davis, S. G.
RIKER, R. See Clinton, De Witt.
Robert, Prince. See William the Conqueror.
f
RoBINUs NovelLUs. See Galeazzo.
RochestER, JoHN WILMoT, Earl of , The witty and profli-
gate nobleman and poet, according to Dr. Johnson, “ was re-
proached with slinking away in street quarrels, and leaving his
companions to shift as they could without him ''': and he adds,
that “Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham, has left a story of his
refusal to fight him.”
RogAAR, HERMAN. See Trenck, Baron Frederic.
RoHAN, Chevalier de. See Voltaire.
Rol.IIN, Mons. LEDRU, and Mons. DEUJoy. In France, 1849.
The former fired : the pistol of the latter “hung fire": the
seconds interposed.
RoMAN, CHARLEs, and W. H. Bowlingly. In 1854, near
Mobile. The latter wounded ; the former son of ex-Governor
Roman.
Romilly, SIR SAMUEL. See McNamara, John.
RoPER, Colonel, and Lieutenant WILLIAM PoE PUREFoy. In
1794. Purefoy was an officer in Roper's regiment, and for
some excesses on a festive occasion was severely reprimanded.
The Lieutenant resented this so much, that the Colonel felt com-
pelled to transfer the case to a court-martial. The result was,
that the court dismissed Purefoy from the army, and rendered
him incapable of serving again : the sentence was read in his
presence, at the head of the regiment. More indignant than
ever, he went to the colonel, and told him that he was a coward,
a ruffian, and a scoundrel ; and afterwards, on the same day,
asked him to agree to a meeting, and shook a whip over his
*
CHALLENGES AND DUELs. -- 271
head. Roper, finally, and by advice of those who repre-
sented that Purefoy no longer belonged to the army, and main-
tained the standing of a gentleman, sent a hostile message.
They accordingly met. Roper was shot dead on the field. Pure-
foy was tried and acquitted.
RoSE, STEPHEN, of Georgia, and At Washington, Mis-
sissippi, in 1810. Rose was an officer in the army of the
United States, and was slain.
RossI, , son of Count of See Canino, Charles Bona-
parte, Prince of -
RossLYN, Earl of. See Boswell, Sir Alexander.
Roths Ay, Duke of. Challenge to King Henry IV. of Eng-
land, I suppose in the year 1410. Henry had invaded Scotland.
Rothsay’s cartel was to meet the monarch in personal combat,
with three hundred, two hundred, or one hundred nobles on each
side. Henry declined.
Rowe, EDwARD. See May, Colonel.
RUGGLEs, See Harris, John S.
RUMIGNY, General. See Dulong, Mons.
RussBLL, A. C., and Captain Folsom. In California, 1851.
Two shots exchanged. The affair settled on the ground, by ad-
vice of Captain Marcy, one of the seconds. -
RUSSELL, GEORGE. See Petit, John.
RUST, Colonel, and Judge STIDGER. In California, 1853. The
first, editor of the Eapress, the latter of the Herald, newspaper.
Stidger was slightly wounded.
RUTHERFoRD and CAHILL. In Scotland, in 1811. They were
officers in the same regiment; the former a captain, the latter a
surgeon. Cahill, contrary to the regulations of the mess, and
when unwell, carried a file of newspapers to his room. This
caused a trifling dispute at the mess. Cahill, when informed of
this by a friend of Rutherford, laughed, and said, “the complaint
must have arisen from personal pique,” and when pressed to
explain his meaning, he added, that “he believed that Ruther-
ford had a personal pique against him.” The captain was of S
fended, and, as Cahill offered no explanation, a meeting was
arranged for the same evening. They fought “in a quarry, or
272 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
\
some such miserable place,” attended by two very young men
as seconds. On the ground, Cahill was afforded an opportunity
to apologize. He refused. Rutherford fell, mortally wounded.
Cahill was tried and acquitted.
Rys, HoweLL AP. See Griffith of Gronw.
2 S. and L. In 1780. The former a lieutenant, and the latter
A a volunteer, in the army of the Revolution. Mr. L. fell, and in-
stantly expired.
SACKVILLE, Lord GeoRGE, and Governor GEORGE JoHNSTONE.
In England, 1770, in Hyde Park, with pistols. Johnstone called
his lordship “a coward” in the House of Commons. Sackville
was accompanied by the Hon. Thomas Townshend ; Johnstone,
by Sir James Lowther. Two shots exchanged ; one of John-
stone's balls struck his antagonist's pistol.
SACKVILLE, SIR GEORGE. See Bruce, Lord Edward.
SALADIN, or SALAHEDDIN YUSEPH BEN AYEB, Sultan of Egypt
and Syria, in the twelfth century, and in the time of the Cru-
sade. Challenge to RICHARD I. of England, to meet him in
single combat, between the two armies, to decide at once their
pretensions to the Holy Land.
The story is a fable, but its author designed it for a veritable
narrative. It finds a place in these pages, as some other legends
have done, to relieve the reader from the continual perusal of the
real and the sad.
The tale, related in the fewest words, is this: that Saladin,
with his defiance, sent Coeur de Lion the present of a war-
horse, which he supposed that monarch would ride in the ex-
pected duel; that this horse was the foal of a mare which Saladin
himself intended to ride; that both animals, by means of con-
jurations, were possessed of devils, which devils were to insure
the Saracen the victory: for the mare was instructed to neigh,
and the foal at the neighing was taught to kneel and suck her.
But the devils were outwitted. An angel warned Richard in a
dream of the plot devised for his destruction, and not only so,
but drove the devil out of his horse; and, to make everything
sure, filled the animal's ears with wax, so that it could not hear.
With an evil spirit on one side, and a good spirit on the other,
the Saracen and the Briton met in deadly encounter. At the
decisive moment, Saladin’s mare “neighed till she shook the
ground for miles around ’’; yet Richard's horse did not obey the
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 273
signal. The result was, that Saladin was dismounted and nar-
rowly escaped with his life ; while the Christians made awful
havoc in his army.
SANDs, Joshua. See Bassett, Willis H.
See Wyer, James.
SARGENT,
SARTIGFs, Mons., Minister of France to the United States. See
Barney, John.
SARtorious, Señor, and Señor Gomusio. In Cuba, in 1854,
with swords. Both wounded. The first, postmaster at Havana;
the latter, an officer of the customs. The Captain-General, dis-
pleased with their conduct, sentenced them to imprisonment in
the Moro Castle, and to suspension from office for a short term.
SCHAFFER, Captain. See Wethered, S.
SCHOOLER, WILLIAM, of London. He wounded his antagonist
in a duel, and fled to Holland; but came finally to Massachusetts,
leaving his wife in England. In America he led a vicious life.
A particular offence brought his career to an end. Undertaking to
conduct Mary Sholy — a poor maid — from Newbury to the Pis-
cataqua River, he abandoned her to perish. It was believed that
he violated and murdered her. He was executed in Boston, in
1633. “There were some ministers and others,” says Win-
throp, “who thought the evidence not sufficient to take away his
life.”
Scott, , editor of the London Magazine, and MR. CHRIS-
TIE, barrister at law. In England, 1821. The quarrel was origi-
nally between Mr. Scott and Mr. Lockhart. The latter, offended
at some of Scott's literary articles, made a call for a hostile meet-
ing, which was declined, without a previous denial that Lock-
hart was the editor of Blackwood’s Magazine. In the course of
the difficulty, a misunderstanding arose between Scott and Chris-
tie, who was Lockhart's intended second. This resulted in a
duel at Chalk Farm by moonlight. Scott was mortally wounded.
A coroner's jury found a verdict of wilful murder. The survivor
and the seconds were tried and acquitted.
Scott, GIov ANNI, and Near New Orleans, in 1853.
Scott was wounded in a duel with knives, was carried to the
Charity Hospital, where he partially recovered, and was dis-
charged. He returned and died.
274 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
Scott, WILLIAM. H. See Smith, Peter.
Scott, WALTER, Laird of Raeburn, and PRINGLE of Crighton.
In Scotland, year 1707. Scott was slain. His family is a branch
of the family of Scott of Harden, immortalized by giving birth
to the author of Waverley.
SEATON, Colonel. See Gustavus II., King of Sweden.
SEGUR, Count. See Gourgaud, Baron de.
SFORZA, FRANCEsco, Duke of Milan. Challenge to GENTILE
LEoNIssa, general of the forces of Venice. In the year 1452.
The two countries were at war. A campaign had been wasted
in manoeuvres, in which each commander exhausted his skill in
eluding the other; when Sforza despatched a herald to the Vene-
tian camp, bearing a bloody gauntlet, and an invitation to a
pitched battle. The cartel was formal, and was formally an-
swered. The defiance was accepted, and the herald returned
with two gauntlets and two lances dipped in blood, as pledges of
Leonissa’s faith. Arrangements were made as for a combat in
the lists, and in accordance with the rules of chivalry. But no
battle occurred. Sforza displayed his line on the appointed
ground, on the appointed day ; but could not see the troops of
Venice, because of a dense fog, and could not advance, because
of a heavy rain ; yet he claimed the victory. Retiring to his
quarters, he suspended Leonissa's gauntlets on a column which
he erected on the plain. But his whole claim as victor rested on
his offer to fight, in his message by the herald.
SENE, Howell, -and Owen GLYNDER. Two Welch chief-
tains, who, in their extreme enmity, met in single combat. Sene
was slain; the hollow tree in which his body was concealed
stood until 1813. A descriptive poem, entitled The Spirit's
Blasted Tree, by the Rev. Mr. Warrington, is printed in the
Notes of Scott's Marmion, to illustrate a passage in the intro-
duction to the sixth canto.
SEVIGNE, the Marquis de, of France, and In 1651.
Sevigne was slain; his wife, Maria de Rabutin, a French woman
of rank, refused to marry again, and devoted her life to letters,
and to the education of a son and daughter.
SHAFTESBURY, Earl of See Mornington, Earl of
SHELBURNE, the Earl of, and MR. FullLARTON, member of Par-
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 275
liament. In England, 1780. A political duel, and the result of an
altercation in Parliament. There are different versions of the
cause of offence. William Lee wrote John Adams that the min-
isterial party seemed “to be getting the better of the opposition
party at home, which it appears they are determined to do, either
by fraud or violence, as the papers will tell you how narrowly the
life of Lord Shelburne has escaped one of the Scotch assassins.”
The editor of Horace Walpole's Letters to Sir Horace Mann,
states that Mr. Fullarton, “after being Lord Stormont’s private
secretary at Paris, was elevated to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel
in the army, and appointed to the command of a newly raised
regiment”; that Lord Shelburne “animadverted severely on the
circumstance in the House of Lords, and in the course of his
speech, designated Mr. Fullarton as a mere clerk, a commis”;
that the latter complained of the insult in his place in the House
of Commons; and that, “the House declining to proceed upon
it, a combat took place in Hyde Park.”
Mr. Fullarton's complaint to the Commons, according to an-
other writer, was substantially as stated in the account last quoted,
except that the aggrieved gentleman further said, that the Earl
had declared that “a clerk ought not to be trusted with a regi-
ment.” /
The version of the Hibernian Magazine, of the time, is, that
Mr. Fullarton complained of the ungentlemanlike behavior of the
Earl of Shelburne, “who,” he affirmed, “ with all the aristo-
cratic insolence that marks that nobleman’s character, had in
effect dared to say, that he and his regiment were as ready to
act against the liberties of England as against her enemies.”
Mr. Fox, in interrupting Mr. Fullarton's invective against the
Earl, referred to the impossibility of knowing whether the words
so bitterly commented on were really spoken or not; and pro-
tested against the course the affair had taken, which, if continued
in that body, would put an end to all freedom of debate; for, if
it were once admitted as a principle, that a personal affront was
offered to gentlemen whenever their names and conduct were
mentioned, the most essential of all the rights of Parliament
would be lost. - - -
The hostile meeting occurred two days afterwards. Mr. Ful-
larton was attended by Lord Balcarras; the Earl, by Lord Fred-
erick Cavendish. The first fire was without effect; at the
second, Mr. Fullarton's ball passed through some paper in the
Earl's pocket, and lodged in his thigh. Mr. Fullarton, seeing
\
276 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
that his lordship was wounded, advanced and demanded a con-
cession. The Earl, who had not discharged his second pistol,
replied, that “he did not come there to make coucessions,” and
desired Mr. Fullarton to take his position again. As soon as the
latter had resumed his place, the Earl fired his weapon in the
air. The seconds then interposed.
Sir James Lowther, on the afternoon of the day of the duel,
called the attention of the House to the subject, on the ground
assumed previously by Mr. Fox; and proposed an inquiry, with
a view of putting an end to combats between the members, in
consequence of words uttered in debate. The discussion was
continued by gentlemen on both sides, in a manner so excited
that Mr. Fox and an official personage of rank were nearly in-
volved in a quarrel; but it terminated without any definite action
on the part of the House, as proposed by Sir James.
Lord Shelburne, on his recovery, received many flattering con-
gratulations from different parts of the country. The duel be-
tween Mr. Fox and Mr. Adam was still fresh in the public mind:
and, so rapidly followed by another, gave some countenance to
the apprehension, both in and out of Parliament, that political
differences of opinion were to be settled quite too often with the
sword and the pistol. There was a singular coincidence in the
two affairs. Both were for similar cause. While, relates Wal-
pole, “The Earl was wounded in the groin, just where Charles
Fox was, on which Sir George Saville said wittily, that Nolan
and Fullarton had tried not only to cut off them, but their poster-
ity. It was odd that the same pistol gave both wounds, for Adam
had borrowed Fullarton’s.” • -
SHEPPARD,
See Phillips, Captain. *
SHERIDAN, RICHARD BRINSLEY, and Captain THoMAS MATHEws.
In England, 1772. Two duels. The principal incidents are
as follows. Sheridan's brother Charles loved Miss Linley.
Mathews, who was a married man, persecuted her with dishon-
orable addresses, and finally, as a means to accomplish his vile
purposes, threatened to ruin her reputation. The terrified girl
confided her distresses to Richard Brinsley, who, it now ap-
peared, cherished an honorable passion for her himself. She re-
solved to seek refuge in France in a convent; Sheridan, if not
the adviser, became the partner, of her flight. Soon after their
arrival upon the Continent, they were married near Calais.
Charles Sheridan, on hearing of the course of the lovers, was
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 277
*A*T
angry; while Mathews was furious almost to an avowal of the
designs which he had entertained, and which were frustrated by
the elopement. Sheridan and his bride soon returned to Eng-
land. Meantime, Mathews nearly involved himself in a duel
with Charles. A formal challenge was sent by Richard Brins-
ley, which was accepted. The parties met, attended by Mr.
Ewart and Captain Knight, in the room of a public house, in
the evening, with swords. Mr. Ewart, Sheridan's friend, “took
lights up in his hands,” and, directly after entering the apart-
ment, the combat commenced. In Sheridan's account of the
affair, he states that Mathews called out twice or thrice, “I beg
my life”; — a fact which the Captain denied. Sheridan says
also, that Knight, as soon as the combatants were parted, re-
marked, “ There, he has begged his life, and now there is an
end of it.” A controversy ensued before the parties separated,
and Sheridan broke his antagonist's sword, “ and flung the hilt
to the other end of the room.”
Mathews retired to his estate in Wales, and “found himself
universally shunned.” Mr. Barnett, a gentleman who resided
near him, commiserating his condition, advised a second meet-
ing, and offered to bear a message. Mathews accepted the
overture, and Barnett posted at once to Bath, when the terms of
another duel were speedily arranged. -
Mathews was attended by Barnett, and Sheridan by a young
gentleman of the name of Paumier. They met at Kingsdown,
about four miles from Bath, in the morning, “ before it was
quite daylight.” The fight was severe, perhaps disgraceful.
“Both their swords breaking upon the first lunge, they threw ('
each other down, and with the broken pieces hacked at each
other, rolling upon the ground, the seconds standing by, quiet
spectators.” Sheridan received several wounds in his breast and
sides, and was dangerously hurt. Mathews escaped with a
single and a slight wound. In this affair, as in the first, the
parties did not agree in their statement of facts, and published
contradictory accounts ; though, in the last, the narrative drawn
up by the second of Mathews appears to have met the concur-
rence of Paumier, except in a “few immaterial circumstances.”
In this narrative, Barnett states that, after Sheridan's sword was
broke, Captain Paumier called out to him, “My dear Sheridan,
beg your life, and I will be yours for ever”; to which, and to a
similar request from Barnett himself, Sheridan replied, “No,
by God, I won't.” The nature of the second combat sufficiently.
- 24 * -
278 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
appears from Barnett's discourse about Mathew’s disengaging his
sword from Mr. Sheridan's body; by the relation of another wound
against one of Sheridan's ribs or breast-bone; by the account
of the closing; of the tripping up of Sheridan's heels; of a skin
wound or two in his neck; of the beating in his face, either with
the fist or the hilt of a sword, &c., &c.
SHREwsBURY, the Earl of, and the Duke of BUCKINGHAM. In
England, year 1668. Persons of rank have sometimes been,
are, very corrupt ; but the details of this duel are almost too
monstrous for credence. The Duke's career was filled with
intrigues, amours, and other deeds of profligacy ; and at least
one of the objects of his licentious indulgence was, it would
seem, as debased as himself. In consequence of adultery with
Lady Shrewsbury, he met her husband in single combat. Sir
Jones Jenkins, Captain Holman, Lord Bernard Howard, and Sir
John Talbot, were the seconds. These four gentlemen fought,
as well as their principals. Not one of the six combatants es-
caped unharmed. Shrewsbury and Jenkins were killed ; Talbot
was severely, and Buckingham, Holman, and Howard were
slightly, wounded. y
Buckingham and Lady Shrewsbury had lived in open adultery;
and the account is that, during the duel, in the dress of a page,
she held her paramour's horse in a thicket near by, to insure
speedy and successful flight, in case he should succeed in slaying
her husband. It is said, too, that she was conveyed to Bucking-
ham's house, was introduced by him to the Duchess ; that she
went to his bed the very night which followed the fatal meeting,
and slept with him, he wearing the shirt in which he fought,
stained with his own and Shrewsbury's blood.
SIDNEY, SIR PHILIP. Challenge to the Earl of Oxford : ac-
cording to one authority, in the year 1573, but probably about
1580. The Earl, a favorite of Queen Elizabeth, and a son-in-
, law of her minister, Burleigh, presuming on his position, called
Sir Philip “a puppy,” at a tournament, in presence of the
French ambassador. Sidney replied, that “all the world knew
that dogs were the parents .# puppies,” and added his defiance.
The Earl was disinclined to fight. The Privy Council attempted
to adjust the difficulty; but Sidney insisted upon an apology or
a duel, and the effort failed. The Queen was then made ac-
quainted with the case, and interposed her commands. In her
interview with the insulted Sidney, she reminded him of the
CHALLENGES AND DUELs. 279
“ difference between earls and private gentlemen "; to which
he said that, though Oxford was “a great lord, yet he was no
lord over him.”
Displeased with the course of the Queen, Sir Philip retired to
the country, and amused himself with the composition of the
celebrated romance of Arcadia. But he returned to court,
and was distinguished in jousts and tournaments.
SIMONs, Colonel MAURICE, and Major WILLIAM CLAY SNIPEs.
In 1786, in the United States. Snipes was the challenger: Si- is
mons had given testimony in a court of justice which offended
him. Simons was killed. Snipes was tried for murder, and
convicted of manslaughter. At the trial, one of the judges said,
that the challenge was for “a most unwarrantable cause ’’; and
another, that he considered the “crime as amounting to mur-
der”; but these opinions were disregarded by the jury, under
the powerful appeals of Snipe’s counsel. ... *
See Smith, wº
SKELTON, FRANK, “a boisterous, joking, fat young, man,”
and an exciseman. In Ireland, about 1783. The exciseman
(as Barrington relates the story) put the but end of a whip
down Skelton's throat, while that worthy was drunk, and asleep
with his, mouth open, at table; and, insisting that snoring at
dinner was a personal offence to every gentleman of the com-
pany, would make no apology.
Skelton was unwilling to fight; the exciseman, said he,
“can snuff a candle with his pistol-ball ; and I am as big as a
hundred dozen of candles.” But there was no escape for the
“fat young man.” They met on the green of Maryborough, in
the presence of hundreds of the town people. The seconds gave
each of the combatants a brace of pistols. Skelton cocked and
fired the two in his hands, before the exciseman could discharge
one, and inflicted a wound each fire ; and having performed this
valorous feat, fled; but was pursued by his second, and dragged
back. The exciseman was so badly hurt that he could not
stand, and it was proposed to strap him to a tree ; but the “fat
young man” objected. The affair ended for the time. But the
exciseman, on his recovery, sent a challenge for a second duel.
As Skelton, by the rules, was entitled to a choice of weapons,
he selected “fists’’; and, said he, “By the powers, you
gauger, I’ll give you such a basting, that your nearest relations
sha’n’t know you.” The exciseman disliked a fight with “fists.”
*
SINGER,
^.
280 CHAL LENGES AND DUELS.
Skelton would not change the weapon, and the matter was
dropped. s
SKINNER, ALEXANDER, of Maryland, a surgeon in the war of
the Revolution. A man of humor, of eccentric mind and manners.
In person, in love of good cheer, and in aversion to the turmoil
of battle, he was not unlike Falstaff. But he had no disinclination
to single combat, and killed his man in a duel. When rallied on
the subject of his excessive disinclination to the din and dangers
of strife by armies, and his course in defence of his honor, he
used to reply that it did not become him, set apart as he was to
take care of the sick and wounded, to ape the airs and duty of
those who were in commission for the express purpose of fighting.
SMITH and MILLER, both Majors in the service of the United
States. In 1827.
SMITH and SINGER. In Kentucky, 1849, with pistols, at
eleven paces. The former a lawyer, the latter a schoolmaster.
Both wounded. The “assembled crowd gave three cheers,” as
the parties quitted the ground.
SMITH, General. See Freeman, General.
SMITH, Lieutenant, British army. See Downing, Lieutenant,
Navy of the United States. ---
SMITH, Captain JoHN, Army of the United States. See
Stuart, Colonel.
SMITH, JoHN, the “Father of Virginia,” and Lord TURBISHA,
and two other Turks. Early in the seventeenth, or near the
close of the sixteenth century, while Smith was in the service of
Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria. During the siege of Regal,
the Turks gave a challenge to any single officer of the Austri-
ans, saying that the Lord Turbisha would fight a Christian,
“ for the diversion of the ladies.”
The choice, in the Austrian camp, was by lot, and fell upon
Smith, who fought, and slew the Turk, “within sight of the
ladies” assembled on the ramparts, and carried his head to
camp. Thereupon, a friend of Turbisha sent a particular defi-
ance to Smith, who, to divert the Turkish ladies still further,
accepted it, met his antagonist, and killed him also. The victor
then sent a message to the fair spectators, that, if bent on still
another combat for their amusement, they were welcome to his
head, provided they would find a champion to take it. Bonamle-
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 281
gro accordingly appeared. In this contest Smith was dismount-
ed, and nearly overcome; but, regaining his saddle, he inflicted
a mortal wound, and was thus a third time victorious.
SMITH, J. CALET. See Broderick, D. C.
SMITH, PETER, and WILLIAM H. Scott. In California, 1853,
with pistols, at eight paces. Smith was killed at the second fire.
He was a son of Judge Pinckney Smith of Mississippi, an officer
under Colonel Jefferson Davis in the war with Mexico, and, as
is said, connected, subsequently, with Lopez in the expedition
against Cuba. He was but twenty-four years of age.
SMITH, W. S. See Clinton, DeWitt.
SMYTH, associate editor of a newspaper published at Augusta,
Georgia, and DR. THOMAs, of the same place. In South Caro-
lina, 1851. Thomas, as is stated, gave offence in an article pub-
lished in another newspaper. Smyth was severely wounded at
the third fire.
SNIPEs, WILLIAM CLAY, Major. See Simons, Colonel Mau-
rice.
SNowden, A. L. See Ready, W. G.
Soissons, Count of. See Angoulême, Charles of Valois,
Duke.
SoMERs, RICHARD, a lieutenant in the navy of the United .
States. A man of a mild and affectionate disposition; but it is is
related that he fought three duels in one day, and that, wounded.
in the two first, he fought the third seated on the ground. He
perished in the Intrepid fire-ketch, before Tripoli, in 1804.
SoPHANEs of Athens. See Eurybates of Argos.
SoToMAYor, ALONzo DE, a Spanish cavalier, and the Chevalier
BAYARD. In the year 1503. While the French were in Apulia,
Bayard defeated a Spanish corps, and made their leader, Soto-
mayor, prisoner. The captive cavalier was well treated; but he
violated his parole by flight, and declared that Bayard had be-
haved uncourteously towards him. Bayard denied the accusa-
tion, and defied Sotomayor to single combat, on horse or on foot.
They met on foot with sword and dagger. The Spaniard was
slain. ' x,
SouLE, NEVILLE, and the DUKE D’ALBA. In Spain, 1853.
The former, son of the Minister of the United States to Spain;
*—

282 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
the latter, a connection by marriage of Louis Napoleon, Emperor
of France.
Whether the immediate origin of this affair was in a remark of
pleasantry, or in an expression of grave import, may be consid-
ered as somewhat uncertain. At a ball at Madrid, given by the
Marquis de Turgot, the French ambassador, the parties to this
duel, and the father and mother of Mr. Soule, were present; and
the Duke likened Mrs. Soule, in her son's hearing, to one of two
very different ladies in history.
One version is, that his grace said, “Look at Margaret of .
Burgundy l’’ another, “Look at Mary of Burgundy l’ Accord-
ing to the statement of M. Alfred Mercier, the words uttered were
the former ; but Mrs. Soule's costume was not that of Margaret
of Burgundy, for, says M. Mercier, “my sister wore a dress of
blue velvet decoletée with gold lace flounces, and a torsade with
golden tassels on her head.”
The two gentlemen met with swords. Mr. Soule was attended
by Colonel Milans del Bosch, and by Mr. Perry, Secretary of the
American legation; the Duke, by General J. de la Concha, and
the Count of Punonrostro. “After a combat of thirty minutes,”
says M. Mercier, “without result, the seconds intervened and de-
clared honor satisfied; the duel ended, and the principals shook
hands.” -
Several minute accounts of this duel are before me, but, unable
to reconcile the discrepancies which exist between them, I dis-
miss it without further comment.
SouLE, PIERRE, Minister of the United States at the Court of
Madrid, and the Marquis de TURGOT, Ambassador of France at
the same. In 1853, in Spain, and immediately after the affair
between Mr. Neville Soule and the Duke of Alba, and for the
same general cause; as appears from the following note of the
American to the French minister: — -
“MonsLEUR LE MARQUIs, - The difference which exists between
the Duke d'Alba and my son arose in your drawing-rooms. It was in
your house, I and my family being your guests, and on the occasion of
a fête of which, by a sort of representation, the Duke d’Alba might con-
sider himself the hero, that the latter took the liberty of Mrs. Soule, and
up to this time nothing has reached us to exonerate you from the re-
sponsibility which this circumstance throws on you. It is even said that
you first used the insulting expression so nobly taken up by my son.
This being the case, Monsieur le Marquis, I have the right of going to
the original source which places the sword in the hands of the Duke d'
Alba and of my son, of making the difficulty mine so far as you are con-
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 283
cerned, and of demanding from you personally a satisfaction which you
cannot refuse to me. Mr. Perry, my friend and an American citizen,
is charged to receive your reply. I have the honor, Monsieur le Mar-
quis, to be your very humble servant, PIERRE SOULE,
A citizen of the United States.”
The copy here given is that of M. Mercier. M. Gaillardet,
the Paris correspondent of the Courier des Etats Unis, furnishes
another which differs in several particulars. Two may be noticed,
namely, that in which Mr. Soule is said to have written (instead
of “took the liberty of Mrs. Soule,” as above) the stronger words,
“was permitted to insult Mrs. Soule’’; and that in which the
original offence is stated to have been from the Marquis; M.
Gaillardet’s version being, “It is stated as a fact, even that from
your mouth proceeded in the first place the offensive expression
afterwards employed by the Duke of Alba, and so nobly retrieved
by my son.” The ambassadors met with pistols. Mr. Soule's
friends were General Waldes and M. Picon ; those of the Mar-
quis, Lord Howden, the British Minister at Madrid, and General
Caillier, a French gentleman of the same diplomatic rank, ac-
credited to some other court. Two shots were exchanged; at
the second, the Marquis fell, severely wounded in the leg below
the knee. Mr. Soule escaped unharmed. The Marquis, relates
M. Mercier, “declared upon his honor, by his seconds, Lord
Howden and General Caillier, that he had not used the expres-
sion imputed to him,” &c. Uncertain as to the truth of other
incidents, as stated in the public journals at home and abroad, I
content myself with a narrative of such facts as seem to be en-
tirely authentic. - .
SouTHAMPTON, Earl of, and LoRD GREY of Wilton. In 1603.
James I. of England had hardly ascended the throne, before
sharp quarrels arose between the nobles who surrounded him.
His queen, Anne of Denmark, unwisely took part in a dissension
which occurred in her presence, and which concerned the Earl
of Essex. Southampton angrily retorted, “that, if her Majesty
made herself a party against the friends of Essex, of course they
were bound to submit; but none of their private enemies durst
thus have expressed themselves.” -
Lord Grey, a professed foe of Essex, took the offence as per-
sonal, and made a hostile reply. The two nobles exchanged the
lie, and a personal combat was likely to ensue. The Queen
bade them “remember where they were,” and ordered them to
their apartments, under a guard. The next day they were “se-
verely lectured by the King,” and sent to the Tower.
i
284 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
SouTHESK, Earl of See Gray, William.
SPARLING, Lieutenant. See Grayson,
SPEAR, W. S., and JoHN KELLEY. In California, 1852. Three
shots exchanged without effect on either side.
SPENs of Kilspindy, and the Earl of ANGUs. Spens was a
courtier of James IV. of Scotland; and when, at table, the mon-
arch gave high praise to Angus, “cast in a word of doubt and
disparaging.” The story reached the Earl's ears, and they soon
after met. As the Earl rode up, he said, “What reason had
you to speak so contemptuously of me, doubting whether my
valor were answerable to my personage 2 " Spens would have
excused himself, but Angus would not listen to him. “Thou art
a big fellow,” uttered the indignant Earl, “ and so am I; one of
us must and shall pay for it.” Spens made reply, “If it may
be no better, there is never an Earl in Scotland but I will
defend myself from him as well as I can ; and rather kill him
than suffer him to kill me.” Both alighted from their horses and
entered upon a mortal strife. Spens’s thigh-bone was at last cut
asunder, and he died on the spot.
STAHL, Colonel. See Tordenskiold, Peter, Vice-Admiral.
STANLY, Hon. EDwARD, member of Congress from North
Carolina, and HoN. SAMUEL W. INGE, member of Congress from
Alabama. In 1851, near Washington, with pistols. In a debate
upon the “River and Harbor Bill,” Mr. Bayly of Virginia had
expressed the opinion that, in the appropriations proposed, the bill
was “sectional,” which statement Mr. Stanly had controverted.
Mr. Inge submitted an amendment, providing for the improve-
ment of certain rivers in Alabama and Mississippi, and in some
remarks which followed referred to the course of Mr. Stanly,
and said: “If the South were to wait for that gentleman's warn-
ing, she would sleep in eternal unconsciousness: she would sleep
until every assault was perpetrated, and until her spoliation was
complete. . . . . It is not from him that I should expect admo-
nition of danger to the South.” This produced a personal dis-
cussion, which, as officially reported, was in these terms : —
Mr. Stanly. “I have a single word to say. I do not believe the gen-
tleman from Alabama wants the appropriation which he asks; but has
offered the amendment, under the rule, that he might make an unkind
and unprovoked fling at me. I do not know what I have done to incur
the gentleman's displeasure.”
\
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 285
Mr. Inge. “I merely stated facts and drew inferences.”
Mr. Stanly. “The gentleman said that the spoliation of the South
could take place before she would hear a warning from me. The gen-
tleman shows that he has little sense and less charity when he charges
me with being unfriendly to the South. I repeat, I am unconscious
what unkindness I have done to provoke the gentleman.”
Mr. Inge. “I did not hear the gentleman. Will he be good enough
to repeat what he said 2 ”
Mr. Stanly. “I say you have little sense and less charity in charging
me with unfriendliness to the South.”
Mr. Inge. “I say that that remark is ungentlemanly and unparlia-
mentary, and comes from a blackguard.”
Mr. Stanly. “Mr. Chairman, he charges me with being a black-
guard. He has just shown to the House and to the country that he
is one.”
The Chairman. “Personalities are not in order.”
Mr. Stanly. “No : personalities are not in order. I am willing to
let our conduct be judged of by the public; and let them estimate his
character and mine. As to my friendship for the South, let the record
and my conduct speak, whether I have not more friendship for the South
than those noisy traitors who impeach others, and seek the applause of
the grog-shops at cross-roads at home by their own professions of devo-
tion, and by crying eternally, ‘There is danger, danger to the South.”
Even those who voted with a majority of Southern members upon cer-
tain measures are uncharitably assailed. I regret I have been called
on to say anything. I was unconscious of giving any provocation. The
gentleman cast the first stone, and he will make the most of what I have
said. I shall hereafter treat remarks from that quarter with the con-
tempt they deserve.” -
The National Intelligencer gave the public the following au-
thentic account of the hostile meeting which was caused by this
discussion : — -
“Adjustment.—In reference to the difficulty between the Hon. S.
W. Inge and the Hon. Edward Stanly, which grew out of the debate of
the House of Representatives yesterday week, we are authorized to
state that they met each other with pistols, and, “after an exchange of
shots between the parties, the friend of Mr. Stanly advanced to the op-
posite party, and expressed a desire that the matter should be termi-
nated, and, in order to arrive at an amicable settlement, stated that the
remarks made by Mr. Stanly in reference to Mr. Inge were made
by Mr. Stanly in reply to what he considered a gross personality on
the part of Mr. Inge in his first remarks. And as the friends of Mr.
Inge stated those remarks to have been political, and, as such, should

not have a personal bearing, Mr. Stanly withdrew his remarks. And
the above having been submitted to the principals, and by them accepted,
the difficulty betwen them was announced as honorably and amicably
settled.”
/
286 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
STANLY, FABIUs, a Lieutenant in the Navy of the United
States. In 1850. Difficulty with Commander Zachariah F.
Johnston, of the same arm of the public service. A misunder-
standing arose between the two gentlemen, during the Mexican
war, or while they were in the Pacific, attached to the same ship.
On the 27th of August, 1850, Stanly wrote to Johnston that he
had sent a communication to the Navy Department, in which he
had spoken of him as an officer who had “not a proper sense
of the importance of character in others, nor in himself, nor of
the dignity embodied in his position ”; that “his vulgar associ-
ates, his dissipated habits, his street and other brawls, his boast-
ing language,” &c., &c., testified “how devoid he is of the first
principles of military honor”; and he concluded his note with
expressing a willingness to maintain all that he had asserted
or intimated “officially or privately.” f . *
Stanly a day or two afterward posted, or caused to be posted,
in the public hall of the National Hotel, Washington, a card, in
these words : — -
“I certify that Commander E. F. Johnston has this day falsified his
word of yesterday, thereby showing that he is a coward. Captain Du-
pereau will confer a favor on me by informing our acquaintances gener-
ally, not only of the above, but that Captain E. F. Johnston—as I can
sustain—is a braggadocio, and the ground on which I found the above.”
Captain Dupereau, upon his own responsibility, added, in
another card, posted in the same building : — -
“I am authorized to publish Captain Johnston of the United States
Navy as a coward. He received a challenge from Lieutenant Stanly
of the Navy, and in answer to this challenge, delivered by me, he ac-
cepted it; and this evening, when I called on the gallant captain, he
refused to accept it, and therefore I am of the opinion of the lieutenant,
that this man is a coward.”
Upon these proceedings, Stanly, in consequence of informa-
tion to the Department by Johnston, was tried by a Naval Gen-
eral Court-Martial, in February, 1851. The charges preferred
were, first, “ disobedience of orders, and conduct unbecoming
an officer,” in this,” that, contrary to a Regulation of the service,
he, “well knowing the same,” had published “his superior officer
as a coward ”; second, of “scandalous conduct, tending to the
* The exact words of the different specifications are omitted, for the sake
of brevity.
CHAL LENGES AND DUELS. 287
destruction of good morals,” in this, that he had posted, or caused
to be posted, the two cards which precede ; and third, “quar-
Telling and using provoking and reproachful words to another
and superior officer in the Navy,” in this, that he wrote and
sent the communication to the Department, which is substantially
copied at the commencement of this notice.
The Court found the accused guilty on the three charges, and
by their sentence he was dismissed from the Navy. But, strange
to sáy, the words “well knowing the same,” were stricken from
the first charge, which in effect was an acquittal upon that;
for it seems that the “Regulation ” on which it was founded,
instead of being a law of Congress, was a simple order issued by
the Department in 1841, and had never obtained general pub-
licity, even in the service.
The President of the United States, in revising the proceed-
ings, was of the opinion that the Court should have found the
accused not guilty as to the first charge ; and, uncertain as to
the influence which an erroneous finding upon that had in their
sentence, ordered the Court to reassemble and reconsider their
finding, on the second and third charges. Upon a reconsidera-
tion, the Court certified to the President, that their sentence
“would not have been in any degree mitigated,” had they
“fully and formally acquitted'’ the accused upon the charge
in question. The President, in his final revision, adhered to his
first judgment as to the erroneous finding; and “in considera-
tion of the good character proved ” by Lieutenant Stanly, “and
the recommendation of a majority of the Court that executive
clemency be extended to him,” mitigated the sentence “to a sus-
pension from service and pay, for the term of twelve months.”
STANLEY, JoHN, and Captain CHICKLEY. In England or Ire-
land, about the year 1721, with swords. Stanley was the chal-
lenger. The duel was in a dark room. The police burst in,
and probably saved Stanley's life, for Chickley had stabbed him
entirely through the body. Stanley was the son of an officer.
His father took great pains to instruct him in the art of fencing,
and he became a master of the sword when a mere boy.
ST. AUBIN, Abbot of See Tours, Wiscount of
STEELE, RICHARD. He wrote against duelling, in the Spectator;
but fought an officer, “whom he narrowly escaped killing.”
STERNE, Lieutenant Roger, and Captain PHILLIPs. Probably
288 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
about the year 1725. Both were officers in the British army,
and at the time of the duel were in garrison at Gibraltar. The
renowned author of Tristram Shandy was a son of Sterne, and
says that “the quarrel began about a goose ’’; and that his
father “was run through the body’ by the sword of his antag-
onist. Sterne remarks further, that, while his father survived
with much difficulty, his constitution was impaired, and was not
able to withstand the hardships to which it was subjected, for,
sent to Jamaica, he soon fell by the country fever.
STEVENsoN, ANDREw, Minister of the United States to Eng-
land, and DANIEL O'ConnELL, the “Irish Liberator.” In 1838.
In Congress, Mr. John Quincy Adams submitted the following
resolutions : —
“Resolved, That a committee of members be appointed with
º to send for persons and papers, to inquire and report to this
Ouse, – -
“1. Whether Andrew Stevenson, Envoy Extraordinary and Minis-
ter Plenipotentiary from the United States at London, is or has re-
cently been engaged in a public newspaper controversy involving his
personal integrity and the honor of his country, whose representative
he is, with Daniel O’Connell, a member of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
“2. Whether the said Andrew Stevenson, holding the privileged
character of an ambassador, has, in concert with three other persons,
citizens of the United States, one of whom, an officer in their navy, en-
gaged in a conspiracy with intent to stop the wind, or, in the language
of the laws of God and of man, to murder the said Daniel O’Connell in
a duel, or by a premeditated provocation to a brawl.
“3. Whether the said Andrew Stevenson, after a written demand
of explanation, in the form usual among duellists, as preliminary to a
challenge, and with the intent to follow it up by a challenge, precon-
certed with the said three other citizens of the United States, did accept
of an answer from the said Daniel O'Connell equally unsatisfactory to
the codes of genuine and of spurious honor, and thereby tacitly admit
the truth of the imputation upon his honor, at which he had professed
• to take offence. -
“4. Whether the said Andrew Stevenson, in these transactions, has
violated the duties of his office as an ambassador of peace, the laws of
nations, the laws of the land, to the government of which he was ac-
credited, the privileges of the British House of Commons, in the per-
son of one of its members, and the honor and interest of his own country.
“5. Whether the said Andrew Stevenson has, in these transactions,
so conducted himself as to require the constitutional interposition of
this House, by impeachment or otherwise.” #
These Resolutions were laid on the table, by a vote of 140
•º
ſº
CHAILLENGES AND DUELS. 289
yeas to 57 nays. Shortly after, Mr. Adams introduced three
other resolutions upon the same subject. The first requested the
President to transmit to the House of Representatives any report
or communication from Mr. Stevenson relative to his controversy
with Mr. O'Connell. The second asked the President to inform
the House, whether he had made any call upon Mr. Stevenson
to explain or account for the transactions in question; whether
any instructions had been given that minister in consequence
thereof; and whether any disavowal or censure of his conduct
had been communicated to the British government. The third
requested information of the President as to Captain Mathew C.
Perry, of the navy of the United States; and whether any call
had been made upon him to account for his violation of the laws
of nations, of his own country, &c., &c. by his participation, with
other citizens of the United States, in a conspiracy against the
life of Daniel O'Connell, &c., &c. These resolutions, like the
former, were laid upon the table.
STEwART, ALPHoNso, and WILLIAM BENNETT. In Illinois,
1820. The following account is derived from a Chicago news-
paper, January, 1851. f
“The First and Last Fatal Duel by Illinoians. –In the year 1820,
a duel was fought in Belleville, St. Clair County, between Alphonso
Stewart and William Bennett. The seconds had made it up to be
a sham duel; Stewart, one of the parties, was supposed to be in the
secret; but Bennett, his adversary, believed it to be a reality. It is
supposed that Bennett somewhat suspected a trick, and, after receiv-
ing his gun from his second, rolled a ball into it. At the word fire,
Stewart fell mortally wounded. Bennett was indicted, tried, and con-
victed for murder. A great effort was made to procure him a pardon ;
but Governor Bond would yield to no entreaties, and Bennett suffered
the extreme penalty of the law, by hanging in the presence of a great
multitude of people. -
“This was the first and last duel which has ever been fought in the
State by any of its citizens. The hanging of Bennett made duelling
discreditable and unpopular, and laid the foundation of that abhorrence
of the practice which has ever been felt and expressed by the people
of Illinois. *
“The present Judge Lockwood was then Attorney-General of the
State, and prosecuted in this case; to his talents and success as a prose-
cutor, the people are indebted for this early precedent and example,
which did more than is supposed to prevent the practice of duelling
from being introduced into his State.”
STEwART, ANDREw. See Thurlow, Lord Edward.
25
290 * CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
STEwART, CLAUDIUs C., and Joseph B. CokeR. In Florida,
or Georgia, 1854. Both gentlemen of the Florida bar. The
account is that it was agreed to meet with double-barrelled shot-
guns, at seventy-five yards, and to advance ten paces at each
fire, until one or both should fall. At the first discharge, Stew-
art was severely wounded in the arm. Amputation became
necessary. The surgeons on the ground were without proper
instruments, and a messenger was despatched a distance of twenty
miles.
STEwART or STUART, JAMEs. See Boswell, Sir Alexander.
STEwART, JoHN, of Pennsylvania, an officer in the army of
the United States, and In 1812, near Washington, Mis-
sissippi. Stewart was killed.
See Bolton, Duke of
STIDGER, Judge. See Rust, Colonel.
STINET, W. S. See Mars, Robert.
ST. John, OLIVER, See Best, Captain in the Guard of Eliz-
abeth. -
ST. LEGER,
STEwART,
See Curran, John Philpot.
ST. LEGER, SIR WARHAM, of the noble family of Doneraile,
and HUGH MAGUIRE, Lord of Fermanagh. In the sixteenth cen-
tury. St. Leger was killed. Maguire fell towards the close of
the century, I suppose in a similar affair.
STONEY, GEORGE Robinson. See Dudley, Sir Henry Bate.
Stowe and TownIy. In New Jersey, 1852. Two shots
were exchanged; both slightly wounded.
STozA, a soldier in the Roman army. In the year 545. He
rebelled, and raised himself to be an equal with Belisarius, and
the nephew of the Emperor. He fell in single combat; but
“smiled in the agonies of death, when he was informed that his
own javelin had reached the heart of his antagonist.”
ST. PHAL, —. See Clermont, Louis de. -
STREET, GeoRGE F. See Wetmore, George Ludlow.
STRozzi, Marquis, and the Marquis BAGNESI. In Italy, 1743.
Both young Italian nobles. The duel, says Sir Horace Mann,
'was in consequence of a debt of “fifteen shillings.” Strozzi
was the creditor and the occasion of the fight.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 291
STUART, colonel in the British army, and Captain JoHN SMITH, ,
of the Maryland troops in the service of Congress. In 1781, in
South Carolina. A duel on the field of battle. The two officers
had met previously, and, having a personal difference, had “mu-
tually declared that their next meeting should end in blood.”
The promise was redeemed at Guilford. Both were brave and
powerful. They singled each other out, and, panting with re-
venge, engaged furiously with the sword. Smith “drove the
edge of his heavy sabre through the head’’ of the British colo-
nel, “cleaving him to the very spine.” - -
STUART, F. See Gwin, William M.
Swartwout, John. See Clinton, De Witt.
Sweet, GEORGE D. See Howard, Samuel.
See Freychappel.
Swiege L,
Swift, THEoPHILUs. See Richmond, Duke of
TALBoT, SIR John. See Shrewsbury, Earl of
TALBoT, Lord. See Wilkes, John.
TALBUT, Captain, and Lieutenant DUNworTH, officers in the
army of the Revolution. In 1776. The challenge was given
by Dunworth, who, it seems, had just been discharged from the
service. Talbot accepted, and a time was fixed for the meeting.
The circumstance was communicated to General Greene, in
camp, on Long Island, New York, who desired Washington's
directions. In his letter to the Commander-in-chief, there is a
passage to cause a smile. “I did not wish to know anything
about it,” said he, “but many of the officers know that I know it”;
and this, he adds, “perplexes me a little, knowing duelling to be
against all law, both civil and military.” . .
TANKERVILLE, Lord. See Bouverie, Edward, Member of
Parliament.
TATNALL, Colonel. See Clay, Henry, and Randolph, John.
TAYLOR, . . See Hopkins,
TEMPLE, JoHN, Lieutenant-Governor of New Hampshire, and
Mr. WHATELY, an English banker, and brother to a former
Secretary of the British Treasury. In England, in December,
1773. This duel was in consequence of the supposition, that
Mr. Whately gave Dr. Franklin the celebrated Hutchinson and
––––. …----------------— - - - -
292 CHAILLENGES AND DUELS.
Oliver Letters, which were transmitted to the philosopher's
Whig friends in Massachusetts, and which created great commo-
tion both in England and America. Mr. Whately was danger-
ously wounded. Walpole wrote the Countess of Ossory :
“We are now picking a duel between a Mr. Temple and a Mr.
Whately, the latter of whom has been drilled with as many
holes as Julius Caesar or a cullender, and of which I know no
more than the newspapers,” &c.
The manner in which Franklin obtained the correspondence
in question has caused nearly as much discussion as the yet
unsolved problem, Who wrote Junius 2 The letters themselves,
says John Adams, “excited no surprise, eaccepting at the miracle
of their acquisition.”
Franklin, in a published card, declares that the parties to the duel
were “both totally ignorant and innocent of the transaction and
circumstances; that he alone was the person who obtained and sent
the documents to Boston; and that Mr. Whately could not commu-
nicate them, because they were never in his possession; and, for
the same reason, they could not be taken from him by Mr. Tem-
ple.” But opposed to these strong expressions, we have the dec-
laration of Temple himself, who, says John Adams, told me in
Holland, that he had communicated these letters to Dr. Franklin,
though I swear to you, said he, “that I did not procure them in
the manner represented.”
To omit the conjectures of Hutchinson and of some others,
we have the positive assertions of Hosack and Thacher, the biog-
raphers of the late Dr. Hugh Williamson (a distinguished physi-
cian, a member of Congress, a framer of the Constitution of the
United States, and historian of North Carolina), that he asked
for and received these letters at a public office in London, ar-
ranged to place them in the hands of Franklin, and departed for
Holland the following day, which account, given with minute-
ness, is derived, as it would seem from the documentary evi-
dence cited, from Williamson's own statements to gentlemen of
the highest respectability. Yet this cannot be so. Hutchinson,
in a message to the House of Representatives of Massachusetts,
dated the third day of June, 1773, speaks of these letters, as
having been laid before that body the day previous ; but Wil-
liamson did not leave Boston for England until the twenty-second,
of December of that year, or for more than six months afterward.
He was waiting for Hancock's ship to sail, at the time of the
destruction of the tea, on the 16th of December, and was the
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 293
first person who reported that occurrence to the British ministry;
and these facts appear by the showing of the writers who claim
that, adroitly, and at great hazard, he procured these celebrated
epistles or despatches. Thus do mistakes find their way into
history, for these are only mistakes.
TENNESSEE : Constitutional provision : —
“Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, fight
a duel, or knowingly be the bearer of a challenge to fight a duel, or
send or accept a challenge for that purpose, or be an aider or abettor in
fighting a duel, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office of honor
or profit in this State, and shall be punished otherwise, in such manner
as the legislature may prescribe.”
See Grymes, Wyndham.
TexAs : Constitutional provisions. Members of the legisla-
ture, and all officers, before they enter upon their duties, are re-
quired to take the following oath : —
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that, since the adoption of this Con-
stitution by the Congress of the United States, I, being a citizen of this
State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State, or out
of it; nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly
weapons ; nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, or aided,
advised, or assisted any person thus offending. So help me God.”
TERRELL,
By another provision, —
“Any citizen of this State, who shall, after the adoption of this Con-
stitution, fight a duel with deadly weapons, or send or accept a chal-
lenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, either within the State or
out of it, or who shall act as second, or knowingly aid and assist in any
manner those thus offending, shall be deprived of holding any office of
trust or profit under this State.”
THATCHER, GEORGE. See Blount, Thomas.
THEoBALD, Sir GEORGE. See Morley, e
THIERs, Mons. M. A., ex-Prime-Minister, and Mons. BIxIo,
ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, of France. In France, 1849,
with pistols. During a debate on the “Roman Question ” in
the French Chambers, the two ministers became involved in an
altercation, which led to a demand for “satisfaction,” on the
part of the former. After an exchange of shots at twenty paces
without effect, the seconds came forward and declared that “the
parties had done all that honor required.”
.*
Thomas, Colonel, and the Honorable Cosmo GARDINER. In
25 # - . •
294 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
England, 1783. Both were officers in the British army, and
served in America during the war of the Revolution. While
here, Thomas preferred charges against Gardiner for non-per-
formance of duty in an action with the troops of Congress, in
1780. Gardiner was tried by a court-martial, and acquitted.
After their return to England, the difficulty was revived.
Thomas was slain ; his will, executed the night before he fell,
contains these words: “In the first place, I commit my soul
to Almighty God, in hopes of his mercy and pardon for the irre-
ligious step I now (in compliance with the unwarranted customs
of this wicked world) put myself under the necessity of taking.”
THoMAs, Doctor. See Smyth.
THoMAs, FRANCIs J. Challenge, in 1853, at Santa Fe,'to the
Honorable Richard H. Weightman, Delegate to the Thirty-second
Congress of the United States, from New Mexico. Weightman,
according to the card sent to members of that Congress by
Thomas, refused to receive the message.
THoMAs, P. W. See Dickson, or Dickenson.
THoMPson, Captain, Harbor-Master of New York, and WIL-
LIAM ColeMAN, editor of the Evening Post, New York. In the
city of New York, near University Place, in 1804, with pistols.
Thompson was a Democrat, Coleman a leader of the Federal
party. After the bloodless termination of the difficulty between
the latter and the editor of the American Citizen newspaper,
(see James Cheetham,) Thompson was free in his remarks; and
said, among other things, that “Coleman would not fight”;
that, “if slapped-on one side of the face, he would turn the
other,” &c., &c. A challenge from Coleman followed. The
parties met at night, in winter, and fought in cold and snow ;
and, before the combat was closed, were compelled to shorten
the distance, in order to see one another. *
The number of shots, exchanged is uncertain. At last,
Thompson was heard to cry, “I’ve got it !” and fell, mor-
tally wounded. The seconds, and the other principals, imme-
diately retired. The surgeon approached, made a hasty exam-
ination of Thompson's injury, pronounced it fatal, and exacted
a promise, that the names of the parties engaged in the affair
should not be divulged by the dying man, who was then con-
veyed to his lodgings. Thompson kept his word ; said he came
to his end “fairly ’’; and years elapsed before the particulars
obtained general publicity.
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 295
THoRIGNY, Mons. See Bouteville, Francis.
THoRNHILL, See Dering, Sir Cholmeley, Baronet.
THORNTON, ABRAHAM, and WILLIAM ASHFORD. In England,
in 1817: a case of the Gothic jurisprudence, of “wager of
battle,” or judicial duel. Thornton was supposed to have mur-
dered Mary Ashford, sister of William, but was acquitted of the
charge at the Warwick Assizes. Upon a writ of appeal, Thorn-
ton appeared in the Court of King's Bench, and offered, accord-
ing to ancient custom, his wager of battle, which the judges
decided he was entitled to claim, the statute never having been
repealed by Parliament, though obsolete for centuries.
Ashford being a mere boy, the challenge was declined.
Thornton was discharged; and, in consequence of the public
feeling against him, came to America, where he soon died. An
act was immediately passed which blotted the “judicial duel ”
from the statute-book of England. \
THURLow, EDwARD, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and
ANDREw STEwART. In England, 1769, with pistols. Thurlow
was the offending party. He was, at this time, at the bar; and
as counsel for Douglas, in the case Douglas vs. the Duke of
Hamilton, (which “after eight years of preparation came on to
be heard at the bar of the House of Lords,”) indulged in a
course of severe remark against Mr. Stewart, who was a gen-
tleman of standing, and had been engaged in procuring evidence
for the Duke. Stewart, the very day the offence was given,
sent a message, and required an immediate meeting. Thurlow,
in reply, accepted the call; but desired a postponement until the
case was closed. They met accordingly, in Kensington Gar-
dens; and exchanged shots, without effect. Thurlow's conduct
on the ground was much applauded ; Stewart, in speaking of it,
said “that Mr. Thurlow advanced and stood up to him like an
elephant.” Another person, observes Lord Campbell, who re-
members the duel well, says that “Thurlow, on his way to the
field of battle, stopped to eat an enormous breakfast at a tavern
near Hyde Park Corner.” -
THYLLUs, “the son of Hercules,” as we are told in ancient
history, deceived by some ambiguous expressions of “the
oracle,” was killed in a single combat, by which he chose to
decide the fate of contending parties. - .
TIERNEy, GeoRGE. See Pitt, William.

296 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
Tobey, Edward. See Crane, Alfred.
ToI.LEMACHE, JoHN, a Captain in the Royal Navy, and son of
‘the Earl of Dysart, and Captain PENNINGTON, of the British
Army. At or near New York, in 1777. In Burke's British
Peerage, the antagonist of Tollemache is called Lord Muncas-
ter; but Walpole, and an officer who was in the King's service
in America at the time, state as I have done. The duel grew
out of “a foolish quarrel,” says Walpole, “about humming a
tune.” Pennington, remarks the officer just referred to, was “a
wrong-headed officer in the Guards,” and, though “we do not
know the particulars, everybody concludes” that he was “ in
the wrong, from his general character.” It appears further,
that Pennington went to America in the ship commanded by
his antagonist. Tollemache was killed; two brothers were pre-
viously drowned. .
ToRDENSKIoID, PETER, Vice-Admiral, and Colonel STAHL, a
Swedish officer. In the kingdom of Hanover, in 1720. The
Admiral’s real name was Peter Wessel. After the performance
of some gallant exploit, the King of Denmark said to him :
“I ennoble you; I confer on you the name of Tordenskiold
(Thundershield), and grant you a coat of arms suitable to the
honorable name which you have so well earned. You are the
thunder which crushes the Swedes, and the shield which covers
the navy of my kingdom.” Tordenskiold has been called the
Nelson of Denmark. On a visit to Hanover, to pay his respects
to George I. of England, he was accompanied by the son of
a rich merchant of Copenhagen. At one of the cities through
which he passed, the young man, by mere chance, fell into the
company of Colonel Stahl and other gamblers, who won all his
ready cash, and compelled him to draw a bill for a large amount
upon his father. Stahl followed the Admiral to Hanover. It
happened that he and Tordenskiold were guests at dinner, at the
house of one of the Hanoverian ministers. The honest Admiral,
looking at the Colonel, commenced a severe philippic against
gamblers; and, that his remarks might be understood, he con-
cluded with the mention of particulars which could apply to the
Colonel alone. Stahl demanded an explanation. Tordenskiold
replied in a tone which increased the Colonel's wrath, and caused
him to say that “no one but a rascally sailor could be capable
of such behavior.” Thereupon, the Admiral, cane in hand,
drove the Colonel into the court-yard, snatched the sword he
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 297
had drawn, and broke it over his head. Stahl instantly gave a
challenge, which was instantly accepted. They met a few
miles distant. Tordenskiold was run through the body, fell
into the arms of his servant, and expired on the spot. -
The intelligence of the Admiral's death deeply moved the
King of Denmark. The remains of his brave officer were
brought to Copenhagen by his direction, and interred in a man-
ner suited to the rank of one who had performed so valuable
services to his country; while, by another royal command, a
complaint was made to the Court of Sweden against Stahl. It
may be added, that Tordenskiold's private character was esti-
mable ; that, in his munificence, he gave pensions to about fifty
widows, and educated many orphan children.
ToURs, the Viscount of. In the year 1066. Challenge to,
by an Abbot of St. Aubin. It was a usage of the time, that an
Abbot, when taking possession of that Abbey, should present a
horse to the Viscount, who claimed the gift in right of his lord-
ship. The ecclesiastic in question refused ; but proposed a
“trial of the ordeal,” or duel, by champions. Tours con-
sented ; but, upon consideration, waived his claim and declined
the combat, on the ground that, while the Church sanctioned
this manner of, duelling, success depended on the skill or vigor
of the combatants, rather than on the justice of the cause.
TownLY, See Stowe, e
TownshenD, Lord, and Lord BELLAMONT. In England, 1773.
The latter was wounded.
Townshend, Sir JoHN, Knight, and a distinguished member
of the first Parliament of James I., and Sir MATHEW BRowN, of
Beachworth Castle. In 1603, on Hounslow Heath, England,
on horseback. Sir Mathew died on the spot; Sir John was
mortally wounded, and expired soon after. The Marquis of
Townshend is of Sir John's lineage. 4)
Townshen D, AUGUSTUs. See Winnington,
TownshBND, Right Honorable THOMAs. See Germaine, Lord
George. *
Townshen D, GEORGE, and Lord ALBEMARLE. In England,
in 1760. Walpole relates the affair thus, in a letter to George
Montagu, dated November 4th : —“An extraordinary event
has happened to-day. George Townshend sent a challenge to
298 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
Lord Albemarle, desiring him to be with a second in the fields.
Lord Albemarle took Colonel Crawford, and went to Mary-le-
bone ; George Townshend bespoke Lord Buckingham, who loves
a secret too well not to tell it ; he communicated it to Stanley,
who went to St. James's, and acquainted Mr. Caswell, the captain
on guard. The latter took a hackney-coach, drove to Mary-le-
bone, and saw one pair. After waiting ten minutes, the others
came. Townshend made an apology to Lord Albemarle for mak-
ing him wait. ‘O,” said he, “men of spirit don’t want apologies;
come, let us begin what we came for.” At that instant out steps
Caswell from his coach, and begs their pardon, as his superior
officers, but told them they were his prisoners. He desired Mr.
Townshend and Lord Buckingham to return to their coach ; he
would carry back Lord Albemarle and Crawford in his. He
did, and went to acquaint the king, who commissioned some of
the matrons of the army to examine the affair, and make it up.
All this while I don’t know what the quarrel was, but they hated
one another so much on the Duke's account, that a slight word
would easily make their aversions boil over.”
TREANOR, BARNARD S. Challenge, in 1853, to PATRICK
O'DonAHOE. A public dinner was given at Faneuil Hall,
Boston, in honor of the birthday of Thomas Francis Meagher,
an Irish exile of some note. Treanor was president of the day;
O'Donahoe, another exile who had recently escaped from Van
Diemen's Land, was a guest. At table, the course of Treanor
gave O’Donahoe offence, which the latter, immediately after the
company separated, made known in a written communication.
Treanor thereupon, it appears, demanded a withdrawal of the
letter, an apology for its contents, or a hostile meeting. He ob-
tained no satisfactory reply to his demand, and a formal chal-
lenge followed. Legal proceedings against the parties put an
end to the affair. z
TRENCK, FREDERIC, Baron von der, a Prussian officer of an-
cient family, and Aide-de-camp to Frederic the Great. Few per-
sons are ignorant of the Baron's general misfortunes, of his re-
peated imprisonments, of his long exile from his native country,
and of his final death under the guillotine.
He traced his descent, on both sides, to knights of the Teutonic
order; his father was a major-general of cavalry. His person
was handsome and lofty; he possessed surpassing strength, in-
vincible courage, a good memory, and an acute intellect. While
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 299
/
a student at the University of Königsberg, he was presented to
the king as one of the best among the five hundred scholars of
that institution. But his life was almost an utter failure.
Before he arrived at the age of seventeen, he acquired fame as
a duellist; having fought three times, and vanquished and wound-
ed his opponents in all. While yet young, the Baron Francis
Trenck, a cousin, “a heartless, godless man, who lived a san-
guinary monster, and died a suicide,” who was an officer in the
Austrian service, involved him in three duels more, with men
who were masters of the sword, and who, his worthless relative
supposed, were sure to slay him. But the Baron Frederic, suc-
cessful as in the previous combats, gave each of his antagonists
a severe wound. These six affairs occurred prior to the year
1748.
In 1749 the Baron Francis put an end to his existence in
prison; and Frederic became heir to his estate, which was vast,
though encumbered. Trenck, who had suffered much at the
hands of his wicked kinsman, was summoned by the proper
tribunal at Vienna to enter upon his inheritance the year follow-
ing, and undertook a journey from Russia for that purpose. The
plan of his route embraced the city of Amsterdam ; and on his
arrival there he became engaged in still another combat, at the
very moment of landing from the ship. The story may be told
in his own words. “I was looking on,” says he, “while the
harpooners belonging to the whale-fishery were exercising them-
selves in darting their harpoons; most of them were drunk. One
of them, Herman Rogaar by name, a hero among these people
for his dexterity with the Snickasee, came up, and passed some
of his coarse jokes upon my Turkish sabre, and offered to fillip
me on the nose. I pushed him from me, and the fellow threw
down his cap, drew his snickasee, challenged me, called me a
monkey-tail, and asked whether I chose a straight, a circular, or
a cross-cut P’” After some other indignities, Trenck turned round
to the by-standers, and requested them to lend him a snickasee.
“No, no,” said the challenger, “draw your great knife from
your side, and, long as it is, I will lay you a dozen ducats you
get a gash in the cheek.” “I drew ; he confidently advanced
with his snickasee, and, at the first stroke of my sabre, the snick-
asee and the hand that held it dropped to the ground, and the
blood spouted in my face.” He expected, he adds, that the peo-
ple would tear him in pieces; but his “fear was changed into
astonishment, at hearing a universal shout, applauding the van-
300 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
quisher of the redoubted Herman Rogaar, who, so lately feared
for his strength and dexterity, became the object of their ridicule.
A Jew spectator conducted me out of the crowd, and the people
clamorously followed me to my inn. This kind of duel, by which
I gained honor, would anywhere else have brought me to the
highest disgrace.” -
TRIAs, Don ANGEL, and an American. In Mexico, 1851.
The American gave offence by speaking “slightingly of the Mex-
icans”; he was killed ; Trias was wounded.
TROUP, GEORGE M. See Howard, Samuel.
TUCKER, See Hughes, James.
Tuckett, Captain HARVEY G. P. See Cardigan, James
Thomas, Earl of
TURENNE, Wiscount, and the Prince of ConDE. In 1580, in
France. The two personages became embroiled in consequence
of the acts of the queen mother; and a challenge from Conde
was the result. Turenne went to the place appointed, but only
to make submission to the Prince, on the ground of his “high
quality.”
The Wiscount was subsequently challenged by Duras and Ro-
san (who were brothers), whom he fought, and by whom he was
wounded in twenty-two places. The duel, according to Sully,
was unfairly conducted on the part of the brothers; yet Turenne
entreated for the pardon of Duras.
TURENNE, HENRI DE LA Tour D’AUVERGNE, Viscount and
Marshal, and the Elector Palatine. Probably about the year
1674. The Marshal spread devastation through the dominions
of the Elector, who saw from his castle “two cities and twenty-
five villages in flames’; and “in a letter full of reproaches,” he
challenged the French general to single combat. The king re-
fused his consent, and Turenne returned in answer “an un-
meaning compliment.” \
TURGOT, Marquis de. See Soule, Pierre.
TYRAwly, Lord. See Clonmell, Lord.
ULSTER, Earl of, the first Englishman who held an Irish title
of honor. Previous to his elevation to the peerage, in 1181, he
was known as Sir John Courcy. On the accession of King John
he fell into disgrace, and was imprisoned. While a captain, and
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 301
probably about the year 1202, John and Philip, King of France,
consented that a dispute between them should be decided by sin-
gle combat. Philip provided his champion, but no one could be
found to enter the lists in behalf of John. At last the Earl of
Ulster was induced to take up the gauntlet. The champions ap-
peared ; and, in the presence of the kings of England, France,
and Spain, prepared for the duel. When about to engage,
Philip's representative, seized with a panic, put spurs to his horse
and fled. The victory was adjudged to Ulster. f
UPTON, SIR HENRy, Ambassador of England to the Court of
France. In the time of Queen Elizabeth. Challenge to the
Duke of GUIs E.
VALDEs, General. See Soule, Pierre.
VALENCIA, Count of. See Luna, Count of
VALENTINE, M., and M. CLARY. At Brussels, in 1850. The
parties were French gentlemen, and members of the Chamber of
Deputies. Valentine was severely wounded. Clary, a relative
of Louis Napoleon.
VALERIUs, M. In the year of Rome 404. Single combat
with a Gaul. , Valerius was the victor. ... He received the name
of Corvus and his descendants that of Corvinus, because, as is
said, a raven perched upon his helmet during the contest, and
contributed with his beak and claws to the defeat of his adver-
sary. * .
VALOIs, PHILIP DE, King of France. See Edward III., King
of England. -
VANCE, Hon. , ex-member of Congress from North Car-
lina, and HON. CARson, member of Congress from the
same State. In 1827; the cause, political. Vance was killed.
WANDYKE, Lieutenant in the Navy, and Lieutenant OSBoFN of
the Marine Corps of the United States. In the Mediterranean, in
1803. Both wounded ; the former, dangerously.
WAN Ness, W. P. See Hamilton, Alexander.
VAssEUR, M. See Aguesseau, M. Segur d’.
VELAsco and PoncE DE LEON. In the reign of Ferdinand and
Isabella, two young men of these noble Spanish families agreed
to fight a duel on horseback, with spears, in doublet and hose,
without armor of any kind, and on a narrow bridge near Madrid.
26 ,- *
302 CHAL LENGES AND DU ELS.
VESEY, WILLIAM, of the noble family of Lord Viscount de
Vesci, and . In England, reign of Queen Elizabeth. Vesey
killed his antagonist, fled to Scotland, and thence removed to Ire-
land.
VIEYRA, M., and M. LAURY. In France, 1852. The parties
were gentlemen of Paris. The arm chosen was the pistol, but
with the agreement that, after an exchange of shots without effect
on either side, resort should be had to the sabre. They met in a
wood with friends, and took their places. An official interfered
and ordered them to desist. But plunging deeper into the forest,
and fearful that they should be overtaken before their pistols
could be loaded and the ground be measured and prepared, they
agreed to use the sabre at once, and engaged with great ardor.
Vieyra received a thrust under his right breast, and was much
hurt. -
VILLARs, Governor of Rouen. See Essex, Earl of
WIRETTE, M. See Pecquigny, Duke of.
VIRGINIA: Constitutional provision : —
“The General Assembly may provide that no person shall be capa-
ble of holding, or being elected to, any post of profit, trust, or emolu-
ment, civil or military, legislative, executive, or judicial, under the gov-
ernment of this Commonwealth, who shall hereafter fight a duel, or send
or accept a challenge to fight a duel, the probable issue of which may
be the death of the challenger or challenged, or who shall be second to
either party, or shall in any manner aid or assist in such duel, or shall
be knowingly the bearer of such challenge or acceptance; but no per-
son shall be so disqualified by reason of his having heretofore fought
such duel, or sent or accepted such challenge, or been second in such
duel, or bearer of such challenge or acceptance.”
VoI.TAIRE, FRANCIS MARIE ARoueT DE. Challenge to the
Chevalier de RoHAN, about the year 1726. Rohan, a proud
young nobleman, offended with Voltaire, caused him to be beaten
by his servant. Voltaire thereupon learned to fence, and sent
his cartel for a meeting to avenge the insult. The friends of the
Chevalier procured an order to commit the challenger to the
Bastile. After an imprisonment of six months, Voltaire was re-
leased, but was compelled to quit France. Untoward as was
this affair at the moment, the reputation and money acquired by
this distinguished man during his exile in England, render it
memorable in his history. - t
WALEs, Prince of, and, the Duke of NEwcASTLE. In the reign

CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 303
t
of George I. “You are a rascal,” said the Prince to the Duke,
“but I shall find you,” or, “I shall find time to be revenged.”
The King, as relates Walpole, pretending to understand these
words as a challenge, put the Prince under arrest, to prevent a
duel. -
WALKER, Hon. , and DR. KENNEDY. In the vicinity of
New Orleans, in 1850, with pistols, at twelve paces. Both edi.
tors of newspapers. One shot exchanged without effect.
WALKINs, Colonel R. See Jackson, James.
WALPoLE, HoRACE, and WILLIAM CHETwyn D, brother of Lord
Viscount Chetwynd, and subsequently Master of the Mint. In
England, 1743. Walpole, in a letter to Sir Horace Mann, hu-
morously said that his uncle Horace “had fought a duel, and
had scratched a scratch three inches long on the side of his ene-
my,” and thereupon relates the circumstances with some minute-
ness. The account of this “memorable engagement” is best
given in the nephew's own words. On the examination of a
witness in the House upon remittances to the army, Lord Wal-
pole remarked : —
“‘He hoped they would indemnify him, if he told anything that effect-
ed himself. Soon after, he was standing behind the Speaker's chair,
and Will. Chetwynd, an intimate of Bolinbroke, came up to him, and
said, “What, Mr. Walpole, are you for rubbing up old sores P’ He re-
plied, ‘I think I said very little, considering that you and your friends
would last year have hanged up me and my brother at the lobby door
without a trial.” Chetwynd answered, ‘I would still have you both have
your deserts.' The other said, “If you and I had, probably I should be
here and you would be somewhere else.” This drew more words, and
Chetwynd took him by the arm and led him out. In the lobby, Hor-
ace said, “We shall be observed, we had better put it off till to-morrow.’
‘No, no, now ! now !” When they came to the bottom of the stairs,
Horace said, ‘I am out of breath, let us draw here.” They drew. Chet-
wynd hit him in the breast, but was not near enough to pierce his coat.
Horace made a pass, which the other put by with his hand, but it
glanced along his side. A clerk who had observed them go out together
so arm-in-arm-ly, could not believe it amicable, but followed them, and
came up just time enough to beat down their swords, as Horace had
driven him against a post, and would probably have run him through
at the next thrust.
“Chetwynd went away to a surgeon's, and kept his bed the next
day: he has not reappeared yet, but is in no danger. My uncle re-
turned to the House, and was so little moved as to speak immediately
on the 'Cambrick bill, which made Swinny say, ‘That it was a sign he
was not ruffled.' Don't you delight in this duel ? I expect to see it
304 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
daubed up by some circuit-painter on the ceiling of the saloon at Wool-
terton.” -
The editor of Walpole cites from Cox's Memoirs of Lord
Walpole an account of this affair, which differs in some essen-
tial particulars.
“A motion being made in the House of Commons,” he states, “which
Mr. Walpole supported, he said to Mr. Chetwynd, “I hope we shall
carry this question.” Mr. Chetwynd replied, ‘I hope to see you hanged
first.’ ‘You see me hanged first!’ rejoined Mr. Walpole, and instantly
seized him by the nose. They went out and fought. The account be-
ing conveyed to Lord Orford, he sent his son to make inquiries; who,
on coming into the House of Commons, found his uncle speaking with
the same composure as if nothing had happened to ruffle his temper or
endanger his life. Mr. Chetwynd was wounded.” -
WALSH, THEoPHILUs. See Pellew, Edward.
WARwICK, Earl of. See Coote, Captain.
WASHINGTON and WASHBURN. In California, 1854. Both
editors. The latter badly wounded.
WEDDERBURN, ALEXANDER, afterwards Lord Loughborough,
Earl of Rosslyn, and Chancellor of Great Britain. Scene in
court, in 1757, in which Wedderburn, says Lord Campbell, “de-
livered such a furious personal invective as never was before or
since heard at the Scottish bar.” One object of his wrath was Mr.
Lockhart, Dean of Faculty, and subsequently Lord Covington,
who, it may be premised, had not resented a threat of personal
chastisement made by a gentleman with whom he had had a
difficulty, and in whose domestic life there were circumstances
supposed to render his reputation vulnerable; the other, the Lord
President Craigie. Lockhart was opposing counsel, and called
Wedderburn a “presumptuous boy.” The future Lord Chan-
cellor, according to the oral tradition, in the course of his reply,
said: — .
“The learned Dean has confined himself on this occasion to vituper-
ation. I do not say that he is capable of reasoning; but, if tears would
have answered his purpose, I am sure tears would not have been want-
ing.” Lockhart here started up and threatened him with vengeance.
edderburn retorted: ‘I care little, my lords, for what may be said or
done by a man who has been disgraced in his person, and dishonored in
his bed.” Lord President Craigie being afterward asked why he had not
sooner interfered, answered, ‘Because Wedderburn made all the flesh
creep on my bones.” But at last his lordship declared, in a firm tone,
that “this was language unbecoming an advocate and unbecoming a
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 305
gentleman.’ Wedderburn, now in a state of such excitement as to have
lost all sense of decorum and propriety, exclaimed that ‘ his lordship
had said as a judge what he could not justify as a gentleman.’ The Presi-
dent appealed to his brethren as to what was fit to be done, who unani-
mously resolved that Mr. Wedderburn should retract his words and
make an humble apology, on pain of deprivation. All of a sudden
Wedderburn seemed to have subdued his passion, and put on an air of
deliberate coolness, when, instead of the expected retraction and apol-
ogy, he said: ‘My Lords, I neither retract nor apologize, but I will save
you the trouble of deprivation ; there is my gown, and I will never wear it
more.’ He then coolly laid his gown upon the bar, made a low bow to
the judges, and before they had recovered from their amazement, he
left the court, which he never again entered. That very night he set
off for London.” -
The readers of American history will not fail to be reminded
of Wedderburn's attack upon Franklin, in 1774, and after the
duel between Temple and Whately (which see in this volume),
in consequence of the transmission of the Hutchinson and Oliver
Letters to Massachusetts, in which he averred that “Nothing
will acquit Dr. Franklin of the charge of obtaining ” this corre-
spondence “by fraudulent or corrupt means, for the most ma-
lignant of purposes, unless he stole” the letters “from the per-
son who stole them. . . . . I hope, my Lords, you will mark
and brand the man, for the honor of this country, of Europe, and
of mankind,” &c.
These examples of the course of Wedderburn towards persons
who opposed him or stood in his way are cited here to express
the wonder that he, one of the most unscrupulous libellers of his
time, was allowed to slander his fellows, on every occasion that
suited his purpose, with impunity, while many of his associates,
both at the bar and in Parliament, were required to answer, ac-
cording to the code of honor, for offences of the tongue, which,
compared with those committed by him during his career, were
undeserving even of a thought. -
WEIGHTMAN, Hon. RICHARD H. See Thomas, Francis J.
WELCH, Lieutenant, and Captain, BARNEs. In 1778. Both N
officers in the army of the Revolution. Welch was the chal- \
lenger; he was tried by a court-martial, and sentenced to be dis-
missed the service. The Commander-in-chief, in consideration
of his previous good conduct, disapproved the sentence, and re-
stored him to his rank. * -
WELCHER, Joseph. See Howard, Samuel.
26% -
306 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
WELLINGTON, the Duke of, and the Earl of WINCHELSEA. In
England, 1829. In consequence of remarks of the Earl, rela-
tive to the course of the Duke on the “Catholic Question,” in
Parliament. The Earl received the Duke's fire, discharged his
own pistol in the air, and by his second delivered a written ac-
knowledgment of regret for the offensive expressions which led
to the meeting.
WELLs, Lieutenant-Governor. See Jackson, James.
WESTcott, HAMPTON. See Miller, William, Jun.
WESTON, LORD. See Holland, Lord.
WETHERED, Hon. S., and Captain ScHAFFER. In California,
1851, with guns. They exchanged shots, and were stopped by
the authorities.
WETMORE, GEORGE LUDLow, and GEORGE F. STREET. In the
Province of New Brunswick, at or near Fredericton, the capital,
in 1821. Both barristers at law. The former, a son of the
Attorney-General; the latter, now (1854) a Judge of the Supreme
Court of New Brunswick.
Wetmore gave the challenge ; the cause, as understood, was
a difficulty in court. Wetmore received a mortal wound in the
head, and expired in a few hours. Street and his second, Lieut.
R. Davis, of the 74th regiment, British army, were tried for mur-
der, early in 1822, and acquitted. The charge of Judge Saunders
to the jury will give the reader a knowledge of the principal facts
of the case.
“Gentlemen of the jury, - Before you take this case into consider-
ation, I must request you to dismiss prejudice, by any attention to
stories told out of doors, to which you cannot give any weight; but you
will be guided by evidence, and carefully weigh that evidence. In the
present case, the gentlemen at the bar stand indicted for the murder of
George Ludlow Wetmore. The event of the party's death is made to
appear by the doctors and others on the ground; that being established,
it requires attention to see whether the prisoners are the perpetrators
of this homicide. The evidence is but presumptive at best, and it
should be considered-in all such cases with attention, and, no doubt, in
the present instance particularly. , Murder is where a person in sound
mind, and with malice aforethought, deliberately kills his victim. The
prisoners are charged with this crime. Malice of two kinds are implied
by law, - express, where the minds are expressed by outward sense,
such as lying in wait, &c.; and in this case, murder by duelling, where
it can be proved that the parties had gone to revenge themselves, it
charges them indeed with express malice, but must be made out ex-
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 307
pressly. But does this malice apply to the prisoners? It appears by
Mr. Taylor, that some high words had passed between the deceased and
Mr. Street, at the Court-House, on Saturday. It appears it was about a
writ, and the parties proceeded to high words. Expressions were made
use of by Mr. Wetmore, treating the whole transaction in a rash man-
ner. Mr. Miller heard high words between the parties, but, being at
the door, did not hear the commencement of the affair; and on the
interference of the Attorney-General they went on as usual, and they
appeared to bear no malice. He says he saw the deceased as late on
Monday night as twelve o'clock, in good spirits, and had not the least
idea of such a circumstance taking place. Thus it appears, gentlemen,
that the parties, from this testimony, at least the deceased, had submitted
to the injunction of his father, and in his mind had no malice or desire
to quarrel. To bring it home to the prisoners, Mr. Segee was called.
Mr. Miller nor Mr. Taylor knew nothing subsequent. .
“Mr. Segee got up at his usual hour, and shortly after heard two
pistols in quick succession, he could distinguish a difference in the re-
port; about six or seven minutes after, heard two more; and soon after
went to the place where the firing was heard, and found the deceased,
with two wounds, one in the arm, and one near the right temple; he
was alive, but insensible; he (Mr. Segee) did not know the parties; on
his way back to the house, saw two persons passing, and thought them
to be the prisoners. But this will not answer; you must have positive
proofs; his testimony, as far as it is material, goes little farther, and his
son's is much the same; they did not know the prisoners; one was ex-
amined before the coroner, and was cross-examined ; could not decide
on anything; for he would not swear; he only thought so, and spoke
contradictory. No attention should be paid to that, on so high a crime
as this. Young Segee saw a pair of pistols; it appears that the parties
stood about fifteen paces' distance apart; and by the doctors, that the
two wounds were by the same ball, and were given when the deceased
was in the act of firing, and the ball received a different direction from
the arm. There is no question about the homicide; but it cannot be
brought home to the prisoners: it is all presumptive proof, and that of
the slightest kind. Nor did it appear by the evidence, that there was
any such as is contemplated in law : the authorities read by the counsel
is good law; and you must, in all cases, have direct evidence of the
fact, to take a person's life. You will find it to be all circumstantial,
and that it does not prove these to be the persons committing the
crime.
“Should there be any doubt in cases of this kind, you should acquit
the prisoners; but in this case it is not in any shape legally brought
home. They stand charged by the indictment; and, indeed, I cannot
say anything further upon the testimony, having explained the principal
parts as far as I understood it. I was told it was a dark morning. §.
evidence, mentioning the dress of Mr. Street, said he had on a blue
coat; another called it blue or black. It is proved by two witnesses
(brothers to the party) that he never wore a b. or black coat. There
308 CHALLENGES AND DUELS,
were several witnesses called as to their character as gentlemen. Char-
acter is of great weight in all cases, particularly where there is but pre-
sumptive evidence: it assists you, gentlemen, in circumstances of doubt;
and there the jury must weigh the case with greater doubt and atten-
tion on the part of the crown.
“In all cases of circumstantial evidence, there is great room for doubt
on the part of the prisoner; and where there is doubt, a jury should
always be on the merciful ground, and acquit. Everything is liable
to doubt in a civil case. Where the story is, however, weighed, and
the evidence is strong, it is considered proper to strike a balance. This
is not the case in criminal cases: there you are not to weigh : the evi-
dence must be positive ; and in doubtful cases you must acquit the
prisoner. Therefore, if you have a doubt, acquit the prisoners.
“Several gentlemen have been called, who speak in the most favor-
able light for the prisoners, as gentlemen; and according to the evidence,
you are to say guilty or not guilty.” *.
The jury then withdrew from the court, and, returning in a
short time, gave a verdict of not guilty. f
WHATELY, , an English banker. See Temple, John.
WHITE, Lieut. FRANCIs B., of the Marine Corps, and Lieut.
WILLIAM B. FINCH, of the Navy of the United States. In 1819,
on an island in Boston harbor. Lieut. White was killed on the
spot. Lieut. Finch changed his name to Bolton, subsequently,
and was a post-captain. A friend who was connected with the
navy, gave me, at the time of the duel, a copy of the correspond-
ence between the parties, which is here inserted.
White to Finch. -
“Boston, September 17th, 1819.
“SIR,-- An opportunity has never before occurred, for demanding
of you satisfaction for the many indignities you were pleased to offer me
when on board the Independence, in 1815, . I cannot doubt that you
will be prompt in rendering atonement for injuries which one gentleman
can never expect to offer another with impunity, and I send my friend
w
for the purpose of making such arrangements as are necessary to this
end. I am, &c.” -
Finch to White. - -
“Boston, September 19th, 1819.
“SIR, -Your friend yesterday handed me your note of the
17th instant, stating that you had suffered many indignities from me while
associated on board the Independence, in 1815, and asking such satis-
faction as the occasion required. In reply, I have to remark that the
indignities alluded to are imaginary, and that our relative stations im-
periously exacted of me that treatment which seems to have been offen-
sive to your feelings. Personal considerations never influenced me, but,
on the contrary, a sense of the benefit which the service would derive
from it only prompted to the conduct I adopted. I am, &c.”
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 309
White to Finch. …”
; “Charlestown, September 20th, 1819.
“SIR,-In reply to your note of yesterday, I have only to observe
that my friend is fully intrusted with my views, and knows my deter-
mination. He will point out the particular instances of ill-treatment of
which I complain, some of which are unconnected with the immediate
question of duty, while all are incompatible with correct principles of
discipline, and in no view calculated to promote the benefit of the ser- '
vice. Public good can never be established at the expense of individ-
ual feelings and honor; and, as I am not disposed to admit the necessity
of this doctrine on the present oceasion, must insist on reparation by
apology, or otherwise. I am, &c.”
Memorandum of Charges sent with Lieut. White's Letter of 20th September.
“1st. For undertaking to reprimand me on the quarter-deck of the
Independence, in presence of the crew; an unwarrantable assumption
of authority, as well as a personal insult. . -
“2d. For flogging two marines, on a certain occasion, without my
knowledge or consent.
“3d. For general ungentlemanlike deportment towards me, while on
board the Independence.
“4th. For saying to Lieut. Legge, that I was ignorant of my duty.”
Finch to White.
. “Boston, September 20th, 1819.
“SIR,-- With all the frank feelings which characterize my profession, -
I yesterday replied to your note of the 17th, and doubted not that it
would produce on your part that liberality of sentiment which I evinced;
but to my regret it is otherwise, and, in lieu of such disposition, is
shown one of an extremely malignant cast. To atone for injuries wan-
tonly inflicted, I would cheerfully hold myself in readiness; for those of
which I am insensible, I am greatly at a loss in what manner to excul-
pate myself for the course I design to adopt: it will rest, however, pri-
marily and principally, on the general basis that all men should at all
risks and hazards support that station they may attain to ; mine has its
concomitant evils. The last note received from you has, for the first
time, elicited my indignation; your arguments are unnecessary, and your
premises altogether fallacious; and, as I allow the affair to be placed
in a private light, I must most emphatically deny that I am accountable,
and express the hope that others may not adopt the course I pursue
on the ground of right; and on that only of courtesy do I meet you.
“The specification of offences which accompany your letter are those
growing out of official station and duty, and only such as an uninformed
and young officer would presume to allege as a pretext for personal
reparation. The remedy for the cases cited is to be found both in the
act organizing and usage governing the service; an officer, therefore,
having its interests at heart, ought at the moment to have referred for
protection or satisfaction to the proper tribunal. But you, on the con-
*
310 CHALLENGES AND DUELs.
trary, cherish to this distant day imaginary wrongs, and claim reparation
because you have indiscreetly expressed a determination to do so. The
only pretence for your conduct is to be found in your fourth specifica-
tion ; to which I shall make no reply, or take further notice, than that
Lieut. Legge is dead. for whose memory I cherish a high regard. Thus
I openly expose my view and opinion of your demand, and, in conclu-
sion, take the liberty of observing the pride for our joint profession, and
the disposition to repel arrogant pretensions, persuade me to give you
the meeting which you so rashly and sedulously seek. I am, &c.”
WHITE, T., and BENJAMIN, JoHNson. In Kentucky, 1852,
with double-barrelled guns, at forty paces. White was killed at
the first fire.
WILDE, JAMEs, of Georgia, and In 1815. Wilde
was a district paymaster in the army of the United States, and
was killed.
WILKEs, John, a politician, and member of Parliament, who,
at the Revolutionary era, amid the cries of “Wilkes and Liberty,”
obtained unmerited and brief celebrity, both in England and
America. The publication of the North Briton involved this
gentleman in several “affairs of honor.” * -
The first, in 1762, with Lord Talbot. The cause was amus-
ing enough. His lordship, as Lord Steward, trained his horse
to step backward, in order that, at the coronation of George III.
(1761), the animal should retire from Westminster Hall, at the
ceremony, with horse and rider facing towards his Majesty. But
when the hour of the pageant arrived, the horse — too perfectly
taught — entered the hall tail foremost, and in this way approached
the royal presence, though every effort was made by Lord Talbot
to prevent it. Wilkes seized upon the circumstance and gave
utterance to some remarks in the North Briton, which, after a
correspondence, led to a hostile meeting, by moonlight, in the
garden of a public house, with pistols. After an exchange of
shots, without effect, “the parties shook hands, and supped to-
gether at the inn with a great deal of jollity.”
The next was in 1763, with Lord Egremont; and I suppose
in consequence of Wilkes's political writings. The terms seem
to have been arranged, but his lordship's death put an end to the
proceedings. -
The third (also in 1763) was with Forbes, a Scotchman, who
had entered the military service of France, as an officer in “a re-
formed regiment.” Forbes was the challenger; he had never
seen Wilkes before encountering him in the streets of Paris, and
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 3.11
called him out simply because he was the author of the offensive
North Briton. Wilkes declined the call at the moment, and
gave as a reason, that he had resolved to fight Lord Egremont.
Forbes behaved with great rudeness. An order was issued by
the French authorities to place both in arrest. The decease of
Egremont removed the obstacle to a meeting with Forbes, who
escaped to England. Wilkes thereupon appeared before Mar-
shal Noailles, was discharged upon his parole, and sent word to
Forbes’s friends that he would afford the demanded interview at
Menin, in Flanders, on a particular day. Forbes, meantime, had
been ordered to quit England, for bearing arms in the French
service; and did not receive the message in season to repair to
the place appointed. A newspaper war followed. After a “great
noise in the world,” the matter was dropped.
The fourth was with Samuel Martin, and was far more serious
than either of the preceding. It occurred in November, 1763,
in Hyde Park, with pistols. Martin had been Secretary of the
Treasury, under the administration of the Duke of Newcastle and
of Lord Bute, and was then a member of Parliament for Camel-
ford. Wilkes had just collected and republished the numbers of
the North Briton, in which the character and morals of Martin
were represented to be infamous. The ex-secretary, in his place
in the House, took notice of this; and, looking at Wilkes, said
twice, “Whoever stabs a reputation in the dark, without setting
his name, is a cowardly, malignant, and scandalous scoundrel.”
Wilkes avowed the authorship of the paper in a note, and was
the challenged party. .
They met at fourteen yards; both missed. Martin’s second
ball wounded his antagonist dangerously in the body. Wilkes
attempted to return the fire, but dropped his weapon, bade Mar-
.tin attend to his safety, and assured him that he would take no
measures against him. Martin, however, fled to France. Wilkes,
before his recovery, followed; saw the ex-secretary, “ sat with
him an hour,” and “joked as usual.”
It is related that Wilkes was asked by the Prince de Croy,
when in France previously, “how far the liberty of the press ex-
tended in England,” and that he replied, “I cannot tell, but I am
trying to know.” H he met the Prince on the visit to Martin,
and after the fourth affair was disposed of, he may have imparted
some additional information.
WILKINson, JAMEs, General in the army of the United States.
\
312 CHALLENGES AND DUELs.
Two challenges. The first, in the war of the Revolution. The
Conway and Gates cabal against Washington involved Gates
and Wilkinson in a quarrel. A cartel was the result, which
Gates accepted. While the parties were on their way to the
ground, Gates made satisfactory explanations, and the affair was
dropped. - g
The second, in 1807, to John Randolph, who declined, for the
reason, he said, that Wilkinson had degraded himself, and that
he would not descend to his level. The proud Virginian was
immediately posted by the General, in the usual form.
WILLIAM THE ConquEROR, King of England. In the year
1066, and before the battle of Hastings, William sent a message
to Harold, by some monks, in which he proposed to the Saxon
monarch to terminate the differences between them in four ways:
first, that Harold should resign the throne; second, that he should
hold the kingdom in fealty to him; third, that their claims should
be submitted for decision to the pope; and fourth, that they
should meet in a duel, the crown to become the meed of the vic-
tor. Harold replied, that “the god of battles would soon be the
arbiter of all their differences.” In the conflict which followed
between the two armies, the Saxon king was slain, and the Nor-
man succeeded.
But William, not long after obtaining the object of his ambi-
tion, was engaged in a personal encounter with his own son
Robert. His first-born rebelled against him. They met on the
field, at the head of opposing forces. Robert ran his father
through the arm with his lance, and unhorsed him. It is related
that William, one of the most approved knights of the age, and
constantly engaged in warlike deeds in which his person was
ever exposed, was wounded and overthrown for the first time in
this contest.
WILLIAMs, , Speaker of the House of Commons. See
Peyton, Sir Robert.
WILLIAMs and BENNETT. British physicians of note, in the
seventeenth century. They fought with swords and pistols.
Bennett, mortally wounded, and with the sword of his antagonist
in his body, prayed to God for strength to avenge himself, and
succeeded in giving Williams a fatal stab. .
WILson, Edward, and JoHN LAw. In England, in 1694,
Wilson was a young man, who lived in the garb and equipage of
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 313
the richest nobleman, for house, furniture, coaches, saddle-horses,
and kept a table and all things accordingly. Law was a Scotch
adventurer, who in after life acquired a world-wide notoriety, by
his Royal Bank of France, by his financial operations generally,
and by his stupendous Mississippi Bubble.
Law, the acknowledged paramour of a Mrs. Lawrence, kept
his mistress in lodgings, and in a house in which Wilson's sister
was a boarder. Wilson took his sister away. The landlady,
injured in reputation and purse, claimed that Law should redress
her wrongs. A meeting ensued, and Wilson was killed on the
spot. Law was immediately apprehended, and tried at the Old
Bailey for murder, found guilty, and sentenced to death. A rep-
resentation was made to the crown, and he was pardoned; but,
in consequence of proceedings instituted by a brother of Wilson,
he was detained in the King's Bench prison. He escaped and
fled to the Continent. He visited Venice and Genoa, and was
banished from both cities as a designing adventurer. In France
he found persons of rank and influence to enter into his plans.
In 1732 he went over to England, and “pleaded his Majesty's
pardon at the King's Bench bar, for killing Edward Wilson, Esq.,
in a duel, in the year 1694.”
WINCHELSEA, Lord. See Richmond, Duke of
WINCHELSEA, Earl of See Wellington, Duke of:
WINDsor, Lord. See Nourse. .
WINNINGTON, , and AUGUSTUs TownsenD. In Hyde
Park, London, in 1741. Winnington, a statesman who held va-
rious offices, and Pitt's predecessor as paymaster of the forces;
Townsend, “a pert boy,” says Walpole, the second son of the
minister, Lord Townsend, and Captain of an Indiaman. Win-
mington was the challenger. They walked into the Park on
Sunday morning, “scratched one another's fingers, tumbled into
two ditches, – that is, Augustus did, - kissed, and walked home
together.”
WINTERS, CHARLEs, and CoLLINs, an ex-sheriff of Flor-
ida. In Florida, 1853. Winters slain.
WINTZEL, Doctor. See Cohn, or Cohen.
WISCONSIN, Constitutional provision : —
“Any inhabitant of this State who may hereafter be engaged, either
directly or indirectly, in a duel, either as principal or accessory, shall
27
314 CHALLENGES AND DUELs.
for ever be disqualified as an elector, and from holding any office under
the Constitution and laws of this State, and may be punished in any
other manner as shall be prescribed by law.”
WISE, HENRY A., member of Congress from Virginia. See
Cilley, Jonathan.
WooD,
Cooper, F. A.
WooDBRIDGE, BENAMIN, and HENRY PHILLIPs. In Boston,
, nephew of the Marquis of Londonderry. See
year 1728, with swords. Woo bridge was slain.
WooDLIEF, Colonel DEVEREAUx J., and ACHILLEs KEWEN.
In California, in 1854, with rifles. The quarrel was political.
Early in November, these gentlemen were in a public room in
San Francisco, in company with several other persons ; and dur-
ing a conversation upon the political aspect of the times, and es-
pecially upon the new party, Woodlief remarked in an offensive
manner, that Kewen was a Know Nothing. The accused there-
upon struck his accuser in the face. Friends immediately inter-
fered and prevented further proceedings on the part of both. It
is believed that Kewen, regretting his course, offered on a subse-
quent day to make an apology, either verbally or in writing,
which Woodlief declined to receive. Woodlief was the chal-
lenger. They met at the place agreed upon, accompanied by
two friends each; but, after the ground was marked off, were
interrupted by a civil officer, who had become acquainted with
the affair and had followed them. They complied with his order
to desist, but entered their carriages with the intention of fighting
elsewhere, and beyond this officer's jurisdiction. Arrived in the
county of Alvarado, they ascended a hill, where their seconds
proceeded to make the common arrangements, in the presence
of about one hundred and fifty spectators. The distance was
forty paces. At the word “Fire l’’ both wheeled and discharged
their weapons. Woodlief received his antagonist's ball directly
in his heart, and expired in less than one minute. His body was
conveyed to San Francisco on the evening of the same day. The
scene, when his wife “ looked upon all that remained of the for-
mer partner of her joys and sorrows, whose silver thread of life
was so abruptly cut, and who but a few short hours before had
gone forth in the strength and prime of manhood, is said, by those
who were present, to have been affecting in the extreme.”
Colonel Woodlief executed his will a day or two previous to
the fatal meeting, bequeathing his property to his wife. He was
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 315
a native of Virginia. He removed to Texas some twenty years
ago, and during the revolution there became a Colonel in the
Texan army. He was in Mexico in the late war, and was dis-
tinguished for his bravery and the accuracy of his fire. He had
been engaged in several duels, and had been frequently wounded
in battle. In 1849 he went to California, where he received the
appointment of collector of an internal tax.
WooDwARD, Doctor. See Mead.
Woolfolk, General Sow ELL, and Major J. J. CAMP. In *
Georgia, in 1832. The former was shot through the heart, and
died instantly; the latter wounded in the abdomen.
WRIGHT, C. J., formerly a lieutenant in the army, and OLIVER
T. BAIRD, formerly of New York. In California, 1853. Wright,
at the second fire, was shot in the neck. -
WRIGHT, F. R. See Evans, H. D.
SARGENT. In 1803, near
WYER, Doctor JAMEs, and
Natchez. Wyer was killed.
YELVERTON, BARRy, son of Lord Avonmore, and barrister at
law. In Ireland; one of Barrington's duels. The substance of
the story is, that in a ball-room, where the officers of a newly
arrived regiment had come to amuse themselves, and to set the
Munster lasses agog, Yelverton, having drank freely, grossly in-
sulted several of the military gentlemen, who, declining to call
him to an account upon the spot, merely required his address
and the hour that he might be seen on the morrow.
Yelverton gave a card to each, and stated that, as he was his
own second, the presence of a friend would be unnecessary;
that his weapon was always the sword, and that he would meet
every man of them in the ball-room at eight o'clock the next
morning. The attendance of the insulted gentlemen was punc-
tual. Yelverton, on inquiry, ascertained that no less than nine
were present to demand satisfaction at his hands. He retired
from the room, as was supposed, to make the necessary arrange-
ments; but soon returned with a bundle of switches, and asked
those whom he had struck, four in number, to step forward.
An amusing scene followed. “Gentlemen,” he uttered, “allow
me to have the honor of handing each of you a switch, (accord-
ing to rule number five of the Tipperary Resolutions,) where-
with to return the blow.” He then gave his card to the other
316 CHALLENGES AND DUELS.
five, with the words, “I beg your pardon,” written above his
name, saying, “That’s agreeable to number one,” (reading the
rule,) and adding, “Now I fancy all your cases are disposed of;
and having done my duty according to the Tipperary Resolu-
tions, which I never swerve from, if, gentlemen, you are not .
satisfied, I shall be on the bridge to-morrow morning with a case
of barking irons.” The military men, amazed, stared at the
barrister and at each other. The honest, jolly countenance, the
drollery of Yelverton, were irresistible. There was a hearty
laugh all round. Yelverton was asked to dine at the regimental
mess, where his eccentricity and good humor delighted every-
body. In the end, the barrister became deranged.
YoFK, Duke of. See Richmond, Duke of
ZENO, CARLo, of an illustrious house of Venice. He was a
favorite of Pope Clement V., who, after his father's death, in-
curred the expense of his education, and bestowed upon him a
rich benefice in the Church. But it was not his fate to become
a Canon, for a duel postponed his ordination; and his marriage
with a beautiful Greek soon afterwards put an end to his hopes
as an ecclesiastic. Embracing the profession of arms, he became
a commander of renown. In the year 1403, as Admiral of the
Venetian fleet, he received a challenge for a naval fight, — galley
against galley, or any larger number, as he might elect, not to
exceed twenty on one side or twenty-four on the other. The de-
fiance was declined. See Boucicault. - -
ZIETHEN, HANs JoACHIM, a Prussian General of cavalry, and
a Knight of the Black Eagle. In the last century, and prior to
the year 1730. When young, a quarrel with an officer caused
his imprisonment for a year; a duel in which he was engaged
soon after his release caused his dismission from the corps.
But restored to service, he obtained, finally, the high rank here
stated. v. -
CHALLENGES AND DUELS. 317
ADDEN DA.
Cooper, Hon. JAMEs, Senator in Congress from Pennsylvania,
and MoRT on McMICHAEL, editor of the North American and
United States Gazette, Philadelphia. Correspondence (in 1854)
equivalent, on the part of the former, to a challenge : —
“Washington House, Philadelphia, September 18.
“To MoRTON McMICHAEL, Esq. : — Sir, My attention has just
been called to an editorial article in the North American and United
States Gazette of this morning, in which the following language is used,
namely: ‘With plunder in high places,’ &c., “and false pretences and
malversation, as in the city subscription to the Sunbury and Erie
Railroad Company, we shall bow our heads with shame, unless the
. and secure processes of the penal laws can be successfully ap-
plied.” .
“My object in addressing you this note is to inquire respectfully .
whether the above remarks are intended to apply to me, and, if so, in
what respect? The right which every man has to maintain his charac-
ter and good name is the one which I invoke in making this call upon
you. If the remarks are intended to be applied to me, it is proper that
I should know it. If they are not, it is equally proper that I should be
freed from the suspicion they are likely to create. I will be obliged to
you for a proper answer. Harry Connelly, Esq., will hand you this
note and receive your reply.
- “I am, sir, your obedient, humble servant,
- “JAMES COOPER.”
The following reply was inclosed in an envelope addressed to
Mr. Connelly: — h -
- “Philadelphia, September 19.
“SIR, -I received your note last evening by the hands of Mr. Con-
nelly, and avail myself of the first leisure which offers to reply.
“You ask whether certain passages in an editorial article in the
North American of Monday last were intended to apply to you. I do
not recognize the propriety of the question, and must therefore decline
to answer it. The article to which you refer was of a public nature; it
concerned public events, and its comments had a public bearing. In
27 *
a
318 CHALLENGES AND DUELS. • \
the parts of it to which you have called my attention, it asserted in gen-
eral terms what uncontradicted public statements had, elsewhere, par-
ticularly set forth, but it made no allusion to any individual.
“In declining to answer the question you have proposed, I am con-
trolled by a conviction of duty. As the conductor of a public journal,
I cannot allow the right of any one to catechize me as to the meaning
of the articles I publish. At the same time I admit my responsibility,
moral, legal, and personal, for whatever appears in the columns of the
North American, and shall hold myself ready, on all proper occasions,
to meet it. I am, sir, yours, &c., - MORTON. MCMICHAEL.
“HoN. JAMES CoopFR, Washington House.”
The second communication to Mr. McMichael was from Mr.
Cooper's friend.
“Philadelphia, September 20.
“MoRTON McMICHAEL, Esq.; — Dear Sir, My friend, Mr. Coop-
er, has received your note of the 10th instant, sent to him under cover
to me; and while it is not satisfactory, inasmuch as it does not relieve
him from the imputation conveyed in your article of Monday, it is en-
tirely so in respect to the avowal that you hold yourself personally
responsible for every thing you publish. In making the call in his note
of the 18th instant, Mr. Cooper desires me to express to you that he
recognizes as fully as any one the right of every editor to perfect inde-
pendence. But for a personal imputation, he is happy that you concur
with his own views in admitting personal responsibility. *
“I now desire to say, on my own part, as the friend of Mr. Cooper,
- that in prosecuting this correspondence further, there might be incon-
venience in doing it here; and if you concur with me in this view of
the case, I beg you will say where and at what time it will suit your
convenience to receive a further message.
“Mr. Cooper admits that, while it is customary, under the circum-
stances in which you stand to each other, that you should make it con-
venient to receive his message in another jurisdiction, he has no right
to insist that you should do so. I will be obliged to you for an an-
swer on this point. * , Very respectfully, yours, &c.,
“HARRY CONNELLY.”
Mr. McMichael, as appears by his statement, on receipt of this
last letter, placed the whole correspondence in the hands of two
friends, with the assurance that he would be governed entirely
by their direction. These friends, having considered the sub-
ject, determined, first, that the article in the North American did
not furnish any ground for the proposition contained in Mr. Con-
nelly's letter, and that Mr. McMichael must decline its accept-
ance; and, second, that, to admit the personal responsibility of
the conductor of a public journal for his strictures on public
affairs, would, in their judgment, be detrimental to the interests
CHALLENGES AND DUELS, 319
of the community, and divest the press of its most important pre-
rogative. Mr. McMichael, in accordance with this opinion, ad-
dressed the friend of Mr. Cooper thus : —
“Philadelphia, September 21.
“DEAR SIR,- As the application made in your note of yesterday
involves principles, which, in their consequences, affect the integrity of
the public press, I have given to it the most careful consideration.
“While I recognize to the fullest extent all my responsibilities for
whatever appears in the columns of the North American, and am ready
on all proper occasions to meet them in whatever form they may be
presented, I am unable to perceive that Mr. Cooper has any right, under
existing circumstances, to invite me to receive from him a hostile mes-
sage. As I stated in my reply to his communication of the 18th instant,
the article to which he referred “was of a public nature, it concerned
public events, and its comments had a public bearing. In the parts of
it to which he called my attention, it asserted in general terms what
uncontradicted public statements had, elsewhere, particularly set forth,
but it made no allusion to any individual.” -
“If the conductors of public journals should permit themselves to be
held personally responsible for their strictures on public affairs, there
would be at once an end to all independence of the press; and wrong
and outrage might go unpunished and unrebuked. I cannot consent,
by my example, to sanction such a course. I pretend to no privilege
of interference with the private affairs of any, and should the journal I
control offend in this way, I shall hold myself justly amenable; but I
do claim, and will exercise, the right of commenting frankly and freely
on all matters of public concern, and upon the conduct of all who stand
in public relations towards them. *
“Very respectfully, yours, &c.,
* - “MORTON McMICHAEL.”
Mr. Connelly replied:— -
A. “Philadelphia, September 22.
“MoRTON. MCMICHAEL, Esq.:—Dear Sir, I have just received
your note, in which you decline to give the personal satisfaction which
Mr. Cooper has a right to expect. Under these circumstances, no fur-
ther correspondence is necessary. Respectfully, yours,
“HARRY CONNELLY.”
J'
DoRSEY, Captain H. P., and R. BEVENs. In California, 1854.
The former Land Register at Los Angeles, the latter connected
with an Indian Land Reserve. Both wounded ; Dorsey in the
abdomen, Bevens in the arm. - -
A PIP EN DIX.
No. I.
EFFORTS OF GENERAL CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCK-
NEY TO SUPE’RESS DUELLING,
IT is possible that some persons of the present generation need
to be informed that the opinion of this gentleman upon every
subject of public concern is entitled to the most respectful con-
sideration. He was a native of South Carolina, of which Colony
his father was Chief Justice. He was sent to England to be edu-
cated, and acquired there a high reputation as a scholar. He
completed his legal studies in the Temple during the controver-
sies which preceded the Revolution, and returned to South Car-
olina and entered upon the duties of his profession. His services
in the field were soon required. He was commissioned a captain,
and rose rapidly to the command of a regiment. In the battles
of Brandywine and Germantown he was an aide-de-camp to
Washington, and acquitted himself with distinguished honor.
Transferred to the South at a subsequent period of the war, and
to the defence of his native State, his zeal and good conduct were
much commended by military men of rank. At the fall of
Charleston he became a close prisoner, and was refused the
privilege even of following to the tomb the remains of his only
son. He was a member of the Convention that framed the Con-
stitution of the United States, and exerted great influence in
procuring its adoption by the people of South Carolina. The
affection and confidence of Washington were often manifested,
since he offered him successively the offices of Judge of the
Supreme Court of the United States, of Secretary of War, of
Secretary of State, of Minister to France, and of Major-General
in the army. He declined the judicial and cabinet appointments,
but accepted the others. His love of country was of the loftiest
322 - APPENDIX.
kind, and two instances of his exhibition of it may be mentioned.
Thus, when abroad on his mission, and the French agents de-
manded a loan as a prerequisite to a treaty, he replied, “Mil-
lions for defence, but not a cent for tribute’’; a sentiment which
has passed into a maxim. So again, when some of his friends,
solicitous for his honor, advised him to resent the supposed injus-
tice of the Commander-in-chief in naming Hamilton (his junior
in the army of the Revolution) as his superior in the army raised
during the difficulties with France, he said, “I am confident that
General Washington has sufficient reasons for this preference.
Let us first dispose of our enemies; we shall then have leisure to
settle the question of rañk.”
When, in the year 1800, General Pinckney was a candidate
for the Vice-Presidency, Hamilton preferred him to Mr. Adams
for the first office. In the election for the fifth term, he was the
opponent of Jefferson, and in that for the sixth, of Madison, for
the Presidency. In private life he was one of the most exem-
plary of men. His manners were frank, his morals pure, his
religious affections warm and active, his charities broad and
liberal. *
The fall of Hamilton was the immediate cause of the two pa-
pers here inserted. The first is an official communication as
Vice-President-General of the Society of the Cincinnati of the
United States, to the President of the New York State Society
of the Cincinnati, and is dated at Charleston, South Carolina,
August 18, 1804.
“SIR,-With deep affliction, I received the account of our irrepara-
ble loss by the death of our late President-General. This deplorable
event has been sensibly felt and lamented in this part of the Union,
even by those who were not personally acquainted with him, and who
did not coincide with him in politics. By me, who have witnessed his
calm intrepidity and heroic valor, on trying occasions, and was acquaint-
ed with his transcendent abilities and amiable qualities, and honored
with his particular friendship, his loss is most poignantly felt, and his
memory will be ever most affectionately revered.
“Is there no way of abolishing, throughout the Union, this absurd and
barbarous custom, to the observance of which he fell a victim 2 Duel-
ling is no criterion of bravery; for I have seen cowards fight duels, and
I am convinced real courage may often be better shown in the refusal
than in the acceptance of a challenge. If the Society of Cincinnati were
to declare their abhorrence of this practice, and the determination of all
their members to discourage it as far as they had influence, and on no
account either to send or accept a challenge, it might tend to annul this
odious custom, and would be a tribute of respect to the sentiments and

APPENDIX. -- 323
memory of our late illustrious chief. If the State Society of New York
should coincide with me in opinion, I should be glad to have their sen-
timents how best to carry it into execution; whether by submitting it
to a meeting of the General Society at New York, Philadelphia, or
Baltimore, or by referring the matter at once to the different State So-
cieties, for their consideration.
“I have this day received your favor of the 25th of July, and am
much obliged to the State Society, and to yourself, for it. With senti-
ments of great respect, I have the honor to be
“Your most obedient servant,
“CHARLEs CoTEsworth PINCKNEY, W. P. G. S. C.”
The above communication was followed, in September of the
same year, by the following circular. It was addressed to cler-
gymen and others of standing in South Carolina, with the accom-
panying Memorial. The postscript was, however, omitted in the
letters to laymen.
“SIR, - Having been appointed by the South Carolina State Soci-
ety of the Cincinnati, and the American Revolution Society, a joint
committee for draughting and circulating a memorial to the Legislature,
praying for legislative interference to restrain the practice of duelling,
we have agreed on the inclosed memorial, and transmit it to you, with
our earnest request that you would use your most vigorous exertions to
have it generally signed. It is unnecessary to dilate on the mischievous
consequences of duelling, to induce your endeavors to check a practice
so dishonorable to this State, in which it is our boast to be governed by
laws, and not by men. The necessity of applying to the Legislature on
the subject, is obvious; for it is well known that the existing laws have
never brought any duellist to serious inconveniences, and there is well-
founded reason for believing that they never can, in consequence of the
weight of precedents to the contrary. Our only alternative, therefore,
is to acquiesce in the practice of duelling, or to restrain it by a new law.
The difficulties of framing any law that may afford an adequate remedy
to the evil are great, but not insurmountable.
“It is not to be supposed that our Legislature is less wise than that
of several of our sister States, whose laws have been so operative, that in
several of them duels are absolutely unknown. If a respectable number
of the friends of good government, morality, and religion sign the memo-
rial we have forwarded, or any similar one, the Legislature, ever atten-
tive to the wishes of their constituents, will enter seriously on the busi-
ness, and we doubt not of their ability to frame such regulations as will
certainly abolish the evil.
“Independent of any law which may be passed, the sentiments of the
most respectable part of the community, in opposition to duelling, de-
clared and avowed by signing the memorial, will have a very beneficial
effect. It will tend to correct the public opinion, and to restrain all who
wish for the esteem of their fellow-citizens from engaging in a practice
which the virtue and good sense of the community have so pointedly

324 APPENDIX.
denounced. These, and many other arguments which must occur on
reflection, will be sufficient to convince you, that, in procuring signers
to the memorial, you will do a service acceptable to God and beneficial
to man. We have further to request you to forward the memorial to
Columbia, by the first Monday in November next, that they may all be
presented together to the Legislature on the first day of their meeting ;
when we hope for the sublime pleasure of seeing an abhorrence of duel-
ling pointedly expressed by many thousands of our most deserving citi-
Z62]].S. We are, with great respect,
* Your most obedient servants,
“CHARLEs C. PINCKNEY, Committee
JAMEs KENNEDY, of the
WILLIAM READ, Cincinnati.
“DAVID RAMSAY, Committee
HENRY W. DESAUssur E, of the
º WILLIAM ALLEN DEAS, American
JAMES LOWNDES, Revolution
RICHARD FURMAN, - Society.
“P. S. Impressed with a firm belief that many advantages would re-
sult from illuminating the public mind on the inconsistency of the spirit
and principles of the practice against which the memorial is levelled,
with the spirit and principles of our holy religion, we earnestly request,
as a particular favor, that you would, at some convenient early day,
preach a sermon on the sin and folly of duelling. When the public sen-
timent is correctly made up on this subject, the advocates for duelling
will be struck with their inconsistency in claiming for themselves the
high and honorable appellation of Christians. In our opinion, public
previous notice of the day on which the proposed sermon will be
preached would in general be both proper and useful; but on this
subject you will judge for yourself.
“To the Honorable the President and Members of the Senate, and the
Honorable the Speaker, and the other Members of the House of
Representatives of the State of South Carolina. s.
“The Memorial of the subscribers, citizens of the said State, showeth,
“That your memorialists are deeply impressed with grief at the prev-
alence of the custom of duelling, which, trampling upon all laws, human
and divine, sweeps off many useful citizens, leaving their families a prey
to sorrow, and often to poverty and vice.
“That this custom originated in dark and barbarous ages, when a
regular and impartial administration of justice was unknown and un-
practised; but it ought not to be tolerated by the civilization of modern
times, under a legislation which has provided, or may easily provide,
adequate redress for all serious injuries committed against the life, liberty,
fame, or property of the citizen.
“That this custom erects a tribunal for the settlement of personal
differences, in which, contrary to all sound principles, a man becomes
the sole judge in his own cause; whence, as might have been expected

APPENDIX. 325
from such a code, the only punishments for the lowest, as well as highest
offences, are written in blood.
“That restraining personal resentments, by giving the attribute of
vengeance to the laws, was the greatest victory obtained by civilization
over barbarism; — but the custom of duelling is too well calculated
to defeat the beneficial effects of that triumph, and to weaken the au-
thority of all laws, by accustoming men to contemn their sanctions.
“That your memorialists are apprehensive, from the frequency of the
practice of late years, that this custom is gaining ground, and seems
likely to be carried to such great lengths, as to degrade men to the
condition of gladiators, and to introduce anew the reign of barbarism.
--- “That, from the nature of the human mind, men are ever ready to
follow examples, especially those set by eminent persons; when, there-
fore, the body of the community perceives great, and in other respects
virtuous citizens, shedding each other's blood on slight provocations, or
trivial pretences, the fatal practice becomes general. Thus the barriers
between virtue and vice, innocence and guilt, are broken down; and
that horror of shedding human blood wantonly, which is the best safe-
guard of the peace of society, is greatly diminished, or wholly destroyed.
“That, in countries where distinctions of rank are sanctioned, a per-
nicious custom may exist, and be confined to the higher orders of soci-
ety, and be comparatively little destructive ; – but that, in our coun-
try of equal laws, rights, and rank, such custom, if unchecked by the
laws, will necessarily become general, and spread its destructive effects
far and wide in the community, to the desolation of thousands of families.
“That this mortal vengeance is not resorted to merely in cases of
grievous injuries, for which the laws may not have provided an adequate
remedy; but in many cases of trivial offence, which a generous mind
would willingly pardon, this tyrant custom is supposed to impose an
obligation to call out to the field of blood even a companion or friend,
who may have unguardedly given the provocation.
“That this absurd custom decides no right, and settles no point; as
the religion and philosophy of modern times will not admit that the
Almighty Disposer of events will interpose his power on such an impious
appeal to his justice; which the credulity of the Gothic nations believed
when this custom existed among them in the form of judicial combat.
It is, therefore, conceded universally, that the innocent and aggrieved
person is as likely to be the victim as the guilty offender, and probably
more so, as a mild and peaceable man would be less inclined to acquire
or exert a murderous skill, the effect of which he abhors.
“That the pretence of those who would excuse this custom on the
ground that it polishes society, and prevents assassination, is wholly un- :
founded; as the most polished nations of ancient times, the Grecians
and Romans, and the most humane and civilized nations of modern
times, the Chinese, have enjoyed society in perfection, without the ad-
ventitious aid of this pernicious and unnatural custom; which, though .*
in direct hostility to the principles of Christianity, prevails only in
Christian Europe and America. - . . . . •
- 28
| | | | | || || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Nº L = 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - _* - - - - - - - -

326 APPENDIX.
“Your memorialists have been informed, that, although the common
law of the land declares homicide in a duel to be murder, the law has
become obsolete, and a dead letter ; — that all the decisions in our
courts of justice have turned wholly on the fairness with which the
duel was conducted; and verdicts of acquittal, or of manslaughter,
have constantly been rendered. Thence arises a necessity for a clear
and explicit expression of the legislative will, on this important subject,
guaranteed by new and vigorous sanctions.
“Your memorialists, therefore, humbly pray that your honorable
house would be pleased to take this important subject into your most
serious consideration ; and that you would, in your wisdom, provide
such remedies as may effectually destroy the evil practice complained
of, by regulations wisely calculated to protect the fame and feelings of
the innocent and insulted person; and to punish rigorously the bold
offender who shall dare to lift his hand against his neighbor, and shed
his blood in a duel, in violation of the Divine law and the law of his
country.”
No. II.
SENTIMENTS OF THE HON. ROBERT BARNWELL RHETT,
LATE SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA,
ON THE SUBJECT OF IDUELLING. *
THESE sentiments are mentioned with commendation in the
Preliminary Essay to this work; and may be cited here at some
length. In 1852, a personal controversy arose in the Senate
between Mr. Rhett and the Hon. Jeremiah Clemens, a Senator
from Alabama, which, at intervals, occupied the time of that body
for several days. On the 27th of February, the latter gentleman,
referring to a previous speech of Mr. Rhett, said : — --
“. He says that I called him a knave and a traitor. No man who heard
that speech of mine ever entertained such an opinion, but himself.
. The allusion to knavery was an illustration, not a charge. But, if I
had done so, the subsequent course of that Senator justifies me in add-
ing the epithet of coward to that of knave and traitor.” –
The President. “The Senator must not use expressions of that kind.”
Mr. Clemens. {I am not out of order, Mr. President, and I intend, if
I can, to keep within the rules of order; but there are some things
which I must say, and which I will say. If, when he believed that the
charge of knavery was pending against him, he brooded over it, and
took more than two months to prepare himself for a deliberate speech
to answerit on the floor of the Senate, he does not deserve the character

APPENDIX. 327
of a man. No man, with the feeling of a man in his bosom, who be-
lieved such a charge was pending against him, would have sought redress
here. He would have looked for it elsewhere. He submitted to it
then, and now comes here, not to ask redress in the only way he should
have sought it, but, as he says, to discredit the witness; and how does
he propose to do it? He begins with the evidence of two of his co-con-
spirators. Now, in my State, they are not allowed by law to give evi-
dence for one another. But that is not all. He has evaded the point.
He has sought to create a false impression upon the Senate and the
country.” * .
Mr. Rhett, in the course of his reply, on the 28th of the same
month, as officially reported, remarked : —
“Mr. President, the course of the Senator from Alabama is precise-
ly that which I expected it would be. I anticipated it in a conver-
sation with a friend before I spoke. He had, without any cause on
my part, stigmatized me here, on this floor, as one guilty of treason
and knavery. I knew very well that a man who would commit such
an offence, who would insult without provocation, would not hesitate,
under the exposure I intended to make, to add insult to insult. There-
fore, when he yesterday pursued the course which he did pursue, it was
precisely what I expected.
“I did not, as the Senator charges, brood two months over his attack.
He heard what I stated on this point in his presence in the Senate. I
stated that I neither knew nor heard of what he had said concerning
me, until just before I was leaving my home in South Carolina to come
to this city. On my arrival here, I waited for the resolution, on which
he had attacked me, to come up for consideration. Seeing the course
of things, I was in no hurry to read his speech. But, not many days
since, about ten days, I suppose, I got the Senator's speech from the
folding-room, and read it. I sent also for a copy of the speech of the Sen-
ator from Michigan [Mr Cass], who I heard had honored me with his
notice. It did not require much brooding to determine my course. I
made up my mind that it became me, as a man and as a Senator, not
to allow these imputations to pass unnoticed in the Senate. I was
equally convinced that my reply to the Senator from Alabama would
be followed by additional and probably aggravated insult. If he insult-
ed me gratuitously, what right had I to expect that, when exposed be-
fore the Senate, he would be more forbearing. He is come up precise-
ly to the estimate I had put upon his character. .
“The Senator from Alabama denies that he meant to charge me with
knavery and treason. Now I will read his words again to the Senate,
and then I will leave the Senate to judge what their import is; and I
will call upon the Senator from Alabama to say, if that is not their im-
port, what they do mean. Here is what he says: — -
“There was the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], the Sen-
ator from Ohio [Mr. Chase], and the Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. Hale], gathered about him in a sort of fraternal ring, while the
countenance of the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] was radiant

328 APPENDIX.
with gladness. Thus was exhibited the spectacle of an extreme Southern
Senator denouncing in no measured terms the government of this coun-
try, and declaring himself a disunionist, on account of alleged wrongs
heaped upon him, with four as rabid Abolitionists as this land contains
drinking in his words with eager approbation, — applauding, cheering,
and encouraging him. All this was nothing new to us, however strange
it may appear to the plain and honest yeomanry of the country. Nor
was it, when calmly considered, at all unnatural.
“A fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind.”
There is a sympathy in treason as well as in knavery, and those who are
earnestly striving to accomplish the same end need not quarrel about
the separate means employed.’ s
“Now here the Senator charges that there is a sympathy between
these Senators and myself upon the matter of disunion; and he then ob-
serves, that there is a sympathy in treason as well as in knavery. Is
not that plainly charging us with treason and knavery 2 I will leave
the Senator from Alabama to explain if that is not his meaning of his
words.” -
Mr. Clemens. “There is not a Senator on this floor who does not un-
derstand it precisely as I do. There is no more charge of knavery
against him than there is against the Senator from Massachusetts, or the
Senator from Ohio, - against whom I never meant to make such a
charge. There is a charge of disunion; and he had himself avowed
that he was a disunionist.”
Mr. Rhett. “If that is all the Senator has to say, his words stand unex-
plained. I ask him to explicate from his words I quote another mean-
ing than that I put upon them. He does not attempt to do so. He
says that they do not contain the charge I allege they do contain.
That is denial; but it is no proof. In his failure to show that they
contain any other meaning than that I put upon them, he virtually ad-
mits that he cannot make his disclaimer consistent with his words. His
words mention persons, – declare that they are in concert to accom-
plish a certain end, and then assert that “there is sympathy in trea-
son as well as knavery.’ The Senator can take his choice between two
alternatives. He was either using words without meaning anything by
them, and thus talking nonsense to the Senate, or he did by his words
make the charge I deduced from them. No man of sense can draw
any other meaning from his words. *
*Now, Mr. President, I admit that this was a gross and wanton insult,
and I admit, too, that, acting upon ‘the code of honor.' I ought not to
have waited a month, or a day, or a moment, before I had required him
to retract or fight. That is the course we are accustomed to pursue in
the State I represent. I was perfectly aware of my position. I did
not require the Senator from Alabama to tell me what I ought to have
done, as a man of the world and a man of honor. But, Sir, I am a
professor of the religion of Christ. I did not think it proper to challenge
the Senator for two very important reasons. The first was, because I
had another object in view, and still have it, far above the vindication

APPENDIX. 329
of myself from any personalities or insults that the Senator may have
offered. Whilst vindicating myself on this floor, I would also vindi-
cate the great cause with which I am identified. I have very feebly
indicated my purposes in my defence, if the Senate has not perceived
that I have used the Senator from Alabama, if not for my scorn or
laughter, to bring up again the wrongs perpetrated by this govern-
ment upon the South, and the consequent dangers which surround
her; and again to place forward for public consideration those great
conservative principles arising from State rights and State sovereignty,
which alone can give her peace or safety.
“Sir, without sovereignty in the States—without the right of seces-
sion in the States—we live under a consolidated despotism; and I am
in favor of the exercise of the right of secession, if for no other purpose,
for the purpose (as I intimated in the speech I delivered the other day)
of testing the form of government under which we live.
“But my second reason for not calling the Senator from Alabama
into the field was of a still higher and more controlling nature. For
twenty years I have been a member of the Church of Christ. The Sena-
tor knows it, — everybody knows it. I cannot, and will not, dishonor my
religious profession. If he, or any one else, supposes that I am so much
afraid of his insults, or the opinion which requires them to be redressed in
the field, as to be driven by them to abandon the profession of twenty
Syears, he is entirely mistaken. Ifrankly admit that I fear God; and that
I fear him more than man. Although desirous of the good opinion of all
ºnen — (for our usefulness is very largely dependent on the good opinion
of our fellows)—we can never obtain it by an abandonment of the prin-
ciples we profess. True courage is best evinced by the firm maintenance
of our principles amidst all temptations and all trials.” I did not assail
the Senator from Alabama. He assailed me. I have defended myself;
and in doing so, if he has seen any fear of him indicated by me, he is
welcome to all the pride and gratification it can impart. If firmness in
maintaining even worldly principles or a course of worldly policy be
any indication of courage, I might not suffer from a comparison with
even the Senator from Alabama. I have not here threatened and
tried to bully the North; and when the North will not be bullied, and
, puts upon me the outrages and dishonors to which I had declared resist-
ance, I have not quietly submitted, and then begged the ‘humble privilege’
of supporting them. I have not afterwards turned round upon one of
those who was battling with me, and who would not yield, and accused
him of fear, of cowardice. Sir, I profess the possession of no extra-
ordinary courage; but I trust I have the courage to support the right
and defy the wrong, although backed by an overwhelming public
opinion, North and South. I am here alone; but, I trust, alone without
fear. Have I quailed before any of you ? Senators, answer, if I have
ever done so.” - * . , x
* The italics are not the Senator's, but the author's.
28% - -

330 APPENDIX.
No. III.
SENTIMENTS OF ELIPHALET NOTT, D.D., ON DUELLING.
THE following passages are extracted from a Sermon delivered
by this eminent man,— who yet survives, – in the North Dutch
Church, Albany, New York, July 29, 1804, in consequence of
the death of Hamilton. Dr. Nott at that time was pastor of the
Presbyterian Church in that city. The discourse had a wide cir-
culation, and was considered as among the ablest performances,
whether of the pulpit or of the forum, of which that sad event
was the occasion, in different parts of the Union. It contains
some expressions which, perhaps, need qualification, and some
opinions which will not receive universal assent. The parts
omitted here are such, principally, as do not relate directly to
Hamilton, and the code to which he was the victim : —
B. “The occasion explains the choice of my subject. A subject on
which I enter in obedience to your request. You have assembled to
express your elegiac sorrows, and sad and solemn weeds cover you.
“Before such an audience, and on such an occasion, I enter on the
duty assigned me with trembling. Do not mistake my meaning. I
tremble indeed,—not, however, through fear of failing to merit your
applause; for what have I to do with that when addressing the dying,
and treading on the ashes of the dead, – not through fear of failing
justly to portray the character of that great man who is at once the
theme of my encomium and regret: he needs not eulogy. His work is
'finished, and death has removed him beyond my censure, and I would
fondly hope, through grace, above my praise. . . . .
“You will ask, then, why I tremble? I tremble to think that I am
called to attack from this place a crime, the very idea of which almost
freezes one with horror, − a crime, too, which exists among the polite and
polished orders of society, and which is accompanied with every aggrava-
tion; committed with cool deliberation, — and openly in the face of day !
“But I have a duty to perform. And, difficult and awful as that duty
is, I will not shrink from it. -
}*Would to God my talents were adequate to the occasion. But such
as they are, I devoutly proffer them to unfold the nature and counteract
the influence of that barbarous custom, which, like a resistless torrent,
is undermining the foundations of civil government, — breaking down
the barriers of social happiness, and sweeping away virtue, talents, and
domestic felicity, in its desolating course. ºf *~~~
;: Another and an illustrious character, — a father, a general, a states-
man, – the very man who stood on an eminence and without a rival,
among sages and heroes, the future hope of his country in danger, —
this man, yielding to the influence of a custom which deserves our.
eternal reprobation, has been brought to an untimely end. . . . . .
|
APPENDIX. 331
“The fall of Hamilton owes its existence to mad deliberation, and is
marked by violence. The time, the place, the circumstances, are
arranged with barbarous coolness. The instrument of death is levelled
in day-light, and with well-directed skill pointed at his heart. Alas !
the event has proven that it was but too well directed. Wounded,
mortally wounded, on the very spot which still smoked with the blóod
of a favorite son, into the arms of his indiscreet and cruel friend the
father fell. - -
“Ah! had he fallen in the course of nature; or jeopardizing his life
in defence of his country, had he fallen — But he did not. He fell in
single combat. Pardon my mistake, – he did not fall in single combat.
His noble nature refused to endanger the life of his antagonist. But
he exposed his own life. This was his crime: and the sacredness of
my office forbids that I should hesitate explicitly to declare it so.
“He did not hesitate to declare it so himself: “My religious and
moral principles are strongly opposed to duelling.” These are his words
before he ventured to the field of death. “I view the late transaction
with sorrow and contrition.” These are his words after his return. . . . .
A.:*Think not that the fatal issue of the late inhuman interview was
fortuitous. No; the Hand that guides unseen the arrow of the archer,
steadied and directed the arm of the duellist. And why did it thus
direct it 2 As a solemn memento, -as a loud and awful warning to a
community where justice has slumbered—and slumbered—and slum-
bered—while the wife has been robbed of her partner, the mother of
her hopes, and life after life rashly, and with an air of triumph, sported
a Wa, V.
& 4 Ånd was there, O my God! no other sacrifice valuable enough, –
would the cry of no other blood reach the place of retribution and
wake justice, dozing over her awful seat -
“But though justice should still slumber and retribution be delayed,
we who are the ministers of that God who will judge the judges of the
world, and whose malediction rests on him who does his work unfaith-
fully, - we will not keep silence. *
I “I feel, my brethren, how incongruous my subject is with the place
Occupy. y
“It º humiliating; it is distressing in a Christian country, and in
churches consecrated to the religion of Jesus, to be obliged to attack a
crime which outstrips barbarism, and would even sink the character of
a generous savage. But humiliating as it is, it is necessary.
“And must we then, even for a moment, forget the elevation on
which grace hath placed us, and the light which the Gospel sheds around
us? Must we place ourselves back in the midst of barbarism 2 And
instead of hearers softened to forgiveness by the love of Jesus, filled
with noble sentiments towards our enemies, and waiting for occasions,
after the example of Divinity, to do them good, – instead of such hear-
ers, must we suppose ourselves addressing hearts petrified to goodness,
incapable of mercy, and boiling with revenge 2 ust we, O my God!
instead of exhorting those who hear us to go on unto perfection, add-
*
332 APPENDIX.
ing to virtue charity, and to charity brotherly kindness, – must we, as if
surrounded by an auditory just emerging out of darkness, and still cruel
and ferocious, reason to convince them that revenge is improper, and
that to commit deliberate murder is sin 2 -
“Yes, we must do this. Repeated violations of the law, and the
sanctuary, which the guilty find in public sentiment, prove that it is
necessary. . . . . . *
“In accomplishing the object which is before me, it will not be ex-
pected, as it is not necessary, that I should give a history of Duelling.
You need not be informed that it originated in a dark and barbarous
age. The §. Greek knew nothing of it. The noble Roman was
above it. Rome held in equal detestation the man who exposed his life
unnecessarily, and him who refused to expose it when the public good
required it.* Her heroes were superior to private contests. They in-
dulged no vengeance except against the enemies of their country.
Their swords were not drawn unless her honor was in danger; which
honor they defended with their swords not only, but shielded with
their bosoms also, and were then prodigal of their blood. ,
“But though Greece and Rome knew nothing of Duelling, it exists.
It exists among us: and it exists at once the most rash, the most absurd
and guilty practice, that ever disgraced a Christian nation. . . . . .
“The duellist contravenes the law of God not only, but the law of
man also. To the prohibition of the former have been added the sanc-
tions of the latter. Life taken in a duel, by the common law, is murder.
And where this is not the case, the giving and receiving of a challenge
only is, by statute, considered a high misdemeanor, for which the prin-
cipal and his second are declared infamous, and disfranchised for twenty
years.
“Under what accumulated circumstances of aggravation does the
duellist jeopardize his own life, or take the life of his antagonist 2
“I am sensible that in a licentious age, and when laws are made to
yield to the vices of those who move in the higher circles, this crime is
called by I know not what mild and accommodating name. But before
these altars, in this house of God, what is it 2 It is MURDER, - deliber-
ale, aggravated MURDER. . . . . . . . .
“If the duellist deny this, let him produce his warrant from the
Author of life, for taking away from his creature the life which had
been sovereignly given. If he cannot do this, beyond all controversy,
he is a murderer, for murder consists in taking away life without the
permission, and contrary to the prohibition, of Him who gave it.
tº Who is it then that calls the duellist to the dangerous and deadly
combat 2 Is it God? No; on the contrary, he forbids it. Is it then
his country 2 No; she also utters her prohibitory voice. Who is it
then 2 A man of honor. And who is this man of honor ? A man
perhaps whose honor is a name, – who prates with polluted lips about
the sacredness of character, when his own is stained with crimes, and
* Sallust. de Bell. Catil. ix. T

APPENDIX. 333
needs but the single shade of murder to complete the dismal and sickly
picture. . . . . .
“Is duelling guilty? So it is
“Absurd. It is absurd as a punishment, for it admits of no propor-
tion to crimes: and besides, virtue and vice, guilt and innocence, are
equally exposed by it to death or suffering. As a reparation, it is still
more absurd, for it makes the injured liable to a still greater injury.
And as the vindication of personal character, it is absurd even beyond
madness.
“One man of honor, by some inadvertence, or perhaps with design,
injures the sensibility of another man of honor. In perfect character
the injured gentleman resents it. He challenges the offender. The of.
fender accepts the challenge. The time is fixed. The place is agreed
upon. The circumstances, with an air of solemn mania, are arranged;
and the principals, with their seconds and surgeons, retire under the
covert of some solitary hill, or upon the margin of some unfrequented
beach, to settle this important question of honor, by stabbing or shoot-
ing at each other.
“One or the other, or both the parties, fall in this polite and gentle-
manlike contest. And what does this prove 2. It proves that one or
the other, or both of them, as the case may be, are marksmen. But it
sº no evidence that either of them possesses honor, probity, or
talents.
“It is true that he who falls in single combat has the honor of
being murdered: and he who takes his life, the honor of a murderer.
Besides this, I know not of any glory which can redound to the infatu-
ated combatants, except it be what results from having extended the
circle of wretched widows, and added to the number of hapless or-
hans. . . . . .
“Since the opinions of men are as they are, do you ask, how you shall
avoid the imputation of cowardice, if you do not fight when you are
injured 2 Ask your family how you will avoid the imputation of cruelty,
—ask your conscience how you will avoid the imputation of guilt, —
ask God how you will avoid his malediction, if you do? These are pre-
vious questions. Let these first be answered, and it will be easy to
reply to any which may follow them.
“If you only accept a challenge when you believe in your conscience
that duelling is wrong, you act the coward. The dastardly fear of the
world governs you. Awed by its menaces, you conceal your senti-
ments, appear in disguise, and act in guilty conformity to principles not
your own, and that too in the most solemn moment, and when engaged
in an act which exposes you to death. *
“But if it be rashness to accept, how passing rashness is it, in a sin-
ner, to give a challenge 2 Does it become him, whose life is measured
out by crimes, to be extreme to mark, and punctilious to resent, whatever
is amiss in others ? Must the duellist, who now, disdaining to forgive,
so imperiously demands satisfaction to the uttermost, — must this man
himself, trembling at the recollection of his offences, presently appear a
- f

334 APPENDIX.
suppliant before the mercy-seat of God 2 Imagine this, and the case is
not imaginary, and you cannot conceive an instance of greater incon-
sistency, or of more presumptuous arrogance. Wherefore, avenge not
$yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath ; for vengeance is mine, I will
repay it, saith the Lord.
“Do you ask, then, how you shall conduct towards your enemy who
hath lightly done you wrong 2 If he be hungry, feed him; if naked,
clothe him; if thirsty, give him drink. Such, had you preferred your
question to Jesus Christ, is the answer he had given you. By observing
which, you will usually subdue, and always act more honorably than
your enemy. . . . . tº
“Compare the conduct of the Christian, acting in conformity to the
principles of religion, and of the duellist, acting in conformity to the
principles of honor, and let reason say which bears the marks of the
most exalted greatness. Compare them, and let reason say which enjoys
the most calm serenity of mind in time, and which is likely to receive
the plaudits of his Judge in immortality.
“God, from his throne, beholds not a nobler object on his footstool,
than the man who loves his enemies, pities their errors, and forgives the
injuries they do him. This is indeed the very spirit of the heavens. It
is the image of his benignity, whose glory fills them. -
“To return to the subject before us. Guilty, absurd, and rash, as
duelling is, it has its advocates. And had it not had its advocates, –
had not a strange preponderance of opinion been in favor of it, never,
O lamentable Hamilton / hadst thou thus fallen, in the midst of thy
days, and before thou hadst reached the zenith of thy glory !
“O that I possessed the talent of eulogy, and that I might be per-
mitted to indulge the tenderness of friendship in paying the last tribute
to his memory ! O that I were capable of placing this great man before
you ! Could I do this, I should furnish you with an argument, the most
practical, the most plain, the most convincing, except that drawn from
the mandate of God, that was ever furnished against duelling, that hor-
rid practice, which has in an awful moment robbed the world of such
exalted worth. . . . . . ~3 --
“I know he had his failings. I see on the picture of his life, a pic-
ture rendered awful by greatness, and luminous by virtue, some dark
shades.— On these let the tear that pities human weakness-fall ; on
these let the veil which covers human frailty rest. — As a hero, as
a statesman, as a patriot, he lived nobly: and would to God I could
add, he nobly fell. . * ,
“ Unwilling to admit his error in this respect, I go back to the period
of discussion. I see him resisting the threatened interview. I imagine
myself present in his chamber. Various reasons, for a time, seem to
hold his determination in arrest. Various and moving objects pass be-
fore him, and speak a dissuasive language. '
“His country, which may need his counsels to guide, and his arm to
defend, utters her veto. The partner of his youth, already covered with
weeds, and whose tears flow down into her bosom, intercedes 1 > His
A
APPENDIX. 335
babes, stretching out their little hands and pointing to a weeping mother,
with lisping eloquence, but eloquence which reaches a parent's heart,
cry out, “Stay, stay, dear papa, and live for us!' In the mean time
the spectre of a fallen son, pale and ghastly, approaches, opens his
bleeding bosom, and, as the harbinger of death, points to the yawning
tomb, and warns a hesitating father of the issue.
“Iſe pauses. Reviews these sad objects: and reasons on the subject.
I admire his magnanimity. I approve his reasoning, and I wait to hear
him reject with indignation the murderous proposition, and to see him
spurn from his presence the presumptuous bearer of it.
“But I wait in vain. It was a moment in which his great wisdom
forsook him. A moment in which Hamilton was not himself. *
“He yielded to the force of an imperious custom, and, yielding, he
sacrificed a life in which all had an interest; —and he is lost, — lost to
his family, - Iost to us.
“For this — act, because he disclaimed it, and was penitent, I for-
give him. But there are those whom I cannot forgive.
“I mean not his antagonist, over whose erring steps, if there be tears
in heaven, a pious mother looks down and weeps. If he is capable of
feeling, he suffers already all that humanity can suffer: suffers, and,
wherever he may ſly, will suffer, with the poignant recollection of having
taken the life of one who was too magnanimous in return to attempt his
own. Had he have known this, it must have paralyzed his arm while
it pointed at so incorruptible a bosom the instrument of death. Does
he know this now 2 his heart, if it be not adamant, must soften ; if it
be not ice, it must melt. — But on this article I forbear. Stained
with blood as he is, if he be penitent I forgive him; and if he be not,
before these altars, where all of us appear as suppliants, I wish not
to excite your vengeance, but rather, in behalf of an object rendered
wretched and pitiable by crime, to wake your prayers.
... “But I have said, and I repeat it, there are those whom I cannot
forgive. --
# cannot forgive that minister at the altar who has hitherto forborne
to remonstrate on this subject. I cannot forgive that public prosecutor,
who, intrusted with the duty of avenging his country's wrongs, has seen
those wrongs, and taken no measures to avenge them. I cannot forgive
that judge upon the bench, or that Governor in the chair of state, who
has lightly passed over such offences. I cannot forgive the public, in
whose opinion the duellist finds a sanctuary. I cannot forgive you, my
brethren, who, till this late hour, have been silent, while successive
murders were committed. No; I cannot forgive you, that you have not,
in common with the freemen of this State, raised your voice to the
powers that be, and loudly and explicitly demanded an execution of your - ~
laws. Demanded this in a manner, which, if it did not reach the ear of :
government, would at least have reached the heavens, and plead your ex-
cuse before the God that filleth them,-in whose presence as I stand,
I should not feel myself innocent of the blood that crieth against us, had
I been silent. But I have not been silent. Many of you who hear me

336 APPENDIX.
are my witnesses, – the walls of yonder temple, where I have hereto-
fore addressed you, are my witnesses, – how freely I have animadverted
on this subject, in the presence both of those who have violated the
laws, and of those whose indispensable duty it is to see the laws exe-
cuted on those who violate them.
“I enjoy another opportunity; and would to God I might be per-
mitted to approach for once the late scene of death. Would to God I
could there assemble on the one side the disconsolate mother with her
seven fatherless children, – and on the other, those who administer the
justice of my country. Could I do this, I would point them to these
sad objects. I would entreat them, by the agonies of bereaved fond-
ness, to listen to the widow's heartfelt groans; to mark the orphans'
sighs and tears. And having done this, I would uncover the breathless
corpse of Hamilton, — I would lift from his gaping wound his bloody
mantle, – I would hold it up to heaven before them, and I would ask,
in the name of God, I would ask, whether at the sight of it they felt no
compunction ?
“You will ask, perhaps, what can be done to arrest the progress of a
practice which has yet so many advocates? I answer, nothing, —if it
be the deliberate intention to do nothing. But if otherwise, much is
within our power. . . . . ; -
“Let, then, the Governor see that the laws are executed; let the
Council displace the man who offends against their majesty; let courts of
justice frown from their bar, as unworthy to appear before them, the mur-
derer and his accomplices; let the people declare him unworthy of their
confidence who engages in such sanguinary contests. Let this be done,
and, should life still be taken in single combat, then the Governor, the
Council, the court, the people, looking up to the Avenger of sin, may
say, ‘We are innocent, we are innocent.” *
“Do you ask how proof can be obtained ? How can it be avoided ?
The parties return, hold up before our eyes the instruments of death,
publish to the world the circumstances of their interview, and even,
with an air of insulting triumph, boast how coolly and deliberately they
proceeded in violating one of the most sacred laws of earth and heaven!
“Ah! ye tragic shores of Hoboken, crimsoned with the richest blood,
I tremble at the crimes you record against us, - the annual register of
murders which you keep and send up to God! Place of inhuman cru-
elty beyond the limits of reason, of duty, and of religion, where man
assumes a more barbarous nature, and ceases to be man. What poig-
nant, lingering sorrows do thy lawless combats occasion to surviving
relatives | :*
“Ye who have hearts of pity, ye who have experienced the anguish
of dissolving friendship, who have wept, and still weep, over the moul-
dering ruins of departed kindred, ye can enter into this reflection.”
APPENDIX. 337
NO. IV.
THE LAW OF ENGLAND RELATIVE TO CHALLENGES
AND DUELS.
\
THESE offences are thus described in the books : —
“Duel, in our ancient law, is a fight between persons in a doubtful case
for the trial of the truth. Fleta. See tit. Battel. But this kind of duel
is disused; and what we now call a duel is a fighting between two, upon
some quarrel precedent: wherein, if a person is killed, both the prin-
cipal and his seconds are guilty of murder, and whether the seconds
fight or not. H. P. C. 47, 51.
“If two persons quarrel over night, and appoint to fight the next
day; or quarrel in the morning, and agree to fight in the afternoon; or
such a considerable time after, by which it may be presumed the blood
was cooled; and then they meet and fight a duel, and one kill the
other, it is murder. 3 Inst. 52. H. P. C. 48. Kel. 56. And when-
ever it appears, that he who kills another in a duel, or fighting on a
sudden quarrel, was master of his temper at the time, he is guilty of
murder: as if, after the quarrel, he fall into another discourse, and talk
calmly thereon; or allege that the place where the quarrel happens is
not convenient for fighting; or that his shoes are too high, if he should
fight at present, &c. Kel. 56. 1 Lev. 180.
“If one challenge another, who refuses to meet him, but tells him
that he shall go the next day to such a place about business, and then
the challenger meets him on the road, and assaults the other; if the
other, in this case, kill him, it will be only manslaughter; for here is no
acceptance of the challenge, or agreement to fight; and if the person
challenged refuseth to meet the challenger, but tells him that he wears
a sword, and is always ready to defend himself, if then the challenger
attack him, and is killed by the other; it is neither murder nor man-
slaughter, if necessary in his own defence. Kel. 56.
“if one kill another in a deliberate duel, under provocation of
charges against his character and conduct, however grievous, it is mur-
der in him and in his second; and therefore the bare incitement to
fight, though under such provocation, is in itself a very high misde-
meanor, though no consequence ensue thereon against the peace.
3 East's Rep. 581. -
“An endeavor to provoke another to commit the misdemeanor of
sending a challenge to fight, is itself a misdemeanor indictable, particu-
larly where such provocation was given by a writing, containing libel-
lous matter, and alleged to have been done with intent to do the party
bodily harm, and to break the king's peace; the sending such writing
being an act done towards procuring the commission of the misdemeanor
meant to be accomplished. 6 East's Rep. 464.”

29
338 APPENDIX.
The case, The King vs. Rice, in the Court of King's Bench,
in 1803, cited above from East's Reports, is of interest, and fol-
lows at length. Rice was a lieutenant in the British navy, and
was tried for having sent to a superior officer a letter in the na-
ture of a challenge, in consequence of an offensive course of
conduct pursued towards him while on duty. The case is
curious, as being one of the very few in the annals of British
jurisprudence in which any punishment has been inflicted for
sending a hostile message. In this case, it may be conjectured
that Rice was imprisoned and fined, not so much for “the in-
tended violation of the peace,” as for the actual breach of the
rules of the naval service. The judgment of the Court was pro-
nounced by Sir Nash Grose, Knight, who,
“in passing sentence upon the defendant, censured strongly several
circumstances of provocation on the part of the prosecutor, which had
led to the challenge given by the defendant. And as to the offence
itself, he observed: This offence in modern times is so frequent, that it
is become alarming to the public, and induces me to suspect that men
either are not aware of the consequences the offence may lead to, or
are become insensible to the mischiefs of them. That fighting a duel is
a grievous breach of the peace is undoubted, and that it ought to be so
considered is as clear; inasmuch as it may lead to one of the worst of
crimes, murder; the murder of one probably, and possibly of more. I
lay stress upon the word murder, because I fear some are ignorant, and
others will perversely not understand, that to kill a man in a duel
amounts to the crime of deliberate murder, whether he that gave or he
that accepted the challenge fall. To every lawyer this is a proposition
perfectly clear; but that others who are not of the profession may as
perfectly be assured of it, I will read only a passage or two from the
most able writers upon the subject, to show that it is a doctrine not of
modern date, but coeval with the first institution of our laws. By Sir
Matthew Hale, as correct, as learned, and as humane a judge as ever
graced a bench of justice, we find it laid down,” that if A ãº. C
to meet in the field to fight, and C decline it as much as he can, but is
threatened by A to be posted for a coward, (an ingredient to be found,
I fear, in this case in substance, though not in terms,) if he meet not;
and thereupon A, and B his second, and C, and D his second, meet and
fight, and C kill A; this is murder in C, and D his second, and so ruled
in Taverner's case; f, in which case, tried before this Court of King's
Bench, in this place, it appeared that the deceased was the challenger,
and that the prisoner accepted the challenge, as the case terms it, upon
very forcible provocation. Sir Edward Coke, the Lord Chief Justice,
laid down the law thus: “This is a plain case, and without any ques-
* I Hale’s P. C. 452. f l Rol. Rep. 360; 3 Bulstr. 171.
*.
-
º
APPENDIX. 339
f
tion ; if one kill another in fight, upon the provocation of him which is
killed, this is murder.' * Of the same opinion were the rest of the Court.
- In this case, it is to be observed that the second, one Thomas Musgrave,
as well as the principal, was indicted, and the second was outlawed.
This precedent may well deter others from taking upon them so illegal
and improper an office. And such has been the law recognized at dif-
ferent times down to the present moment, as we may observe by what
is laid down by a very learned and able judge f of the last reign. His
words are, ‘that, in all possible cases, deliberate homicide upon a prin-
ciple of revenge is murder; for no man under the protection of the
law is to be the avenger of his own wrongs. If they are of such a na-
ture, for which the laws of society will give him an adequate remedy,
thither he ought to resort; but be they of what nature soever, he ought
to bear his lot with patience, and remember that vengeance belongeth
only to the Most High.” Then he goes on : ‘Upon this principle, de-
liberate duelling, if death ensueth, is in the eye of the law murder; for
duels are generally founded in deep revenge; and though a person
should be drawn into a duel, not upon a motive so criminal, but merely
upon the punctilio of what the swordsmen falsely call honor, that will not
excuse; for he that deliberately seeketh the blood of another on a pri-
vate quarrel, acteth in defiance of all laws, human and divine, whatever
his motive may be.’ Here, too, we may note this excellent man's opin-
ion upon that punctilio of honor, by the rules of which some men affect
to palliate, and others to justify, crimes of the blackest dye, the grossest
frauds, gambling, seduction, adultery, murder. Such was and is the
law of honor, and no man who will attend to the subject can doubt of it.
In this case, if the prosecutor had not obeyed the law, by consulting his
own honor, and not the false honor of Swordsmen, and either party had
fallen, the other would have undoubtedly been guilty of murder, and
liable to an ignominious and fatal sentence: from which had it been his
fortune to escape, either from absence of witnesses, or any other means
that sometimes occur to cause a failure of public justice, the remainder
of his life must have been clouded with the dreadful remembrance that,
for the purpose of giving or receiving that miserable thing falsely called
satisfaction, he had unnecessarily imbrued his hands in the blood of a
brother officer. Fortunately for the defendant, that crime he has not
to atone for; he is to receive sentence only for attempting to provoke
a duel. The punishment for this offence, as a misdemeanor, is discre-
tionary, and must be guided by such circumstances of aggravation or
mitigation as are to be found in the offence.
“He then adverted to the particular circumstances of the case,
amongst which were several of a nature to mitigate very materially the
offence, accompanied by affidavits of the defendant's general merits as
an officer from many respectable officers of the navy; though there
still remained, as he observed, much for which atonement should be
made-to the public for the intended violation of its peace. Wherefore,
* 3 Bulstr. 172. f Mr. Justice Foster in his Crown Law, 296.
*

340 APPENDIX.
upon the whole, the Court, taking into consideration the imprisonment
already suffered by the defendant, (who had been brought up early in
the term, and committed to custody in the mean time,) adjudged him to
pay a fine of £100, and to be imprisoned for one calendar month, and
at the expiration of that time to give security to keep the peace for
three years, himself in £1,000, and two sureties in £250 each, and to be
further imprisoned till such fine were paid and such securities given.”
No. V.
}
EXTRACT FROM THE SPECTATOR, No. 99.
THE great violation of the point of honor from man to man is
giving the lie. One may tell another he whores, drinks, blas-
phemes, and it may pass unresented ; but to say he lies, though
but in jest, is an affront that nothing but blood can expiate. The
reason perhaps may be, because no other vice implies a want of
courage so much as the making of a lie ; and therefore telling a
man he lies, is touching him in the most sensible part of honor,
and indirectly calling him a coward. I cannot omit under this
head what Herodotus tells us of the ancient Persians, that from
the age of five years to twenty they instruct their sons only in
three things, to manage the horse, to make use of the bow, and
to speak truth. -
The placing of the point of honor in this false kind of courage
has given occasion to the very refuse of mankind, who have
neither virtue nor common sense, to set up for men of honor.
An English peer, who has not been long dead,” used to tell a
pleasant story of a French gentleman, that visited him early one
morning at Paris, and, after great professions of respect, let him
know that he had it in his power to oblige him; which, in short,
amounted to this, that he believed he could tell his lordship the
person's name who jostled him as he came out from the opera;
and before he would proceed, he begged his lordship that he
would not deny him the honor of making him his second. The
English lord, to avoid being drawn into a very foolish affair, told
him he was under engagements for his two next duels to a
* It has been said that this was William Cavendish, the first Duke of
Devonshire, who died August 18, 1707.
APPENDIX. 341
couple of particular friends. Upon which the gentleman im-
mediately withdrew, hoping his lordship would not take it ill if
he meddled no farther in an affair from whence he himself was
to receive no advantage.
The beating down this false notion of honor, in so vain and
lively a people as those of France, is deservedly looked upon as
one of the most glorious parts of their present king's reign. It
is a pity but the punishment of these mischievous notions should
nave in it some particular circumstances of shame and infamy ;
that those who are slaves to them may see, that, instead of ad-
vancing their reputation, they lead them to ignominy and
dishonor. . t
Death is not sufficient to deter men who make it their glory to
despise it; but if every one that fought a duel were to stand in
the pillory, it would quickly lessen the number of these imagi-
nary men of honor, and put an end to so absurd a practice.
When honor is a support to virtuous principles, and runs par-
allel with the laws of God and our country, it cannot be too
much cherished and encouraged ; but when the dictates of honor
are contrary to those of religion and equity, they are the great-
est depravations of human nature, by giving wrong ambitions
and false ideas of what is good and laudable ; and should there-
fore be exploded by all governments, and driven out as the bane
and plague of human society. L.
No. VI.
FROM THE TATLER,
THE point of the two papers which follow is apparent without a word.
Steele assisted in the production of the first, but the last was written by
Addison alone. -
No. 256. Tuesday, November 28, 1710.
—Nostrum est tantas componera Lites. – Virg.
The Proceedings of the Court of Honor, held in Sheer Lane
on Monday, the 20th of November, 1710, before Isaac
Bickerstaffe, Esq., Censor of Great Britain.
PETER PLUMB, of London, merchant, was indicted by the
- 29 + -
342 - APPENDIX.
Honorable Mr. Thomas Gules, of Gule Hall, in the county of
Salop, for that the said Peter Plumb did, in Lombard Street, Lon-
don, between the hours of two and three in the afternoon, meet the
said Mr. Thomas Gules, and, after a short salutation, put on his
hat, value five-pence, while the Honorable Mr. Gules stood bare-
headed for the space of two seconds. It was further urged
against the criminal, that, during his discourse with the prosecu-
tor, he feloniously stole the wall of him, having clapped his back
against it in such a manner, that it was impossible for Mr. Gules
to recover it again at his taking leave of him. The prosecutor
alleged, that he was the cadet of a very ancient family, and
that, according to the principles of all the younger brothers of
the said family, he had never sullied himself with business, but
had chosen rather to starve like a man of honor, than do any-
thing beneath his quality. He produced several witnesses, that
he had never employed himself beyond the twisting of a whip,
or the making of a pair of nut-crackers, in which he only worked
for his diversion, in order to make a present now and then to his
friends. The prisoner being asked what he could say for him-
self, cast several reflections upon the Honorable Mr. Gules; as,
“that he was not worth a groat; that nobody in the city would
trust him for a halfpenny ; that he owed him money, which he
had promised to pay him several times, but never kept his word;
and, in short, that he was an idle, beggarly fellow, and of no use
to the public.” This sort of language was very severely repri-
manded by the censor, who told the criminal, that he spoke in
contempt of the court, and that he should be proceeded against
for contumacy, if he did not change his style. The prisoner
therefore desired to be heard by his counsel, who urged in his
defence, that he put on his hat through ignorance, and took the
wall by accident. They likewise produced several witnesses,
that he made sundry motions with his hat in his hand, which are
generally understood as an invitation to the person we talk with
to be covered ; and that the gentleman not taking the hint, he
was forced to put on his hat, as being troubled with a cold.
There was likewise an Irishman, who deposed, that he had heard
him cough three-and-twenty times that morning. And as for
the wall, it was alleged, that he had taken it inadvertently, to
save himself from a shower of rain, which was then falling.
The censor, having consulted the men of honor, who sat at his
right hand on the bench, found they were of opinion, that the
defence made by the prisoner's counsel did rather aggravate
Ae

APPENDIX. 343
than extenuate his crime ; that the motions and intimations of
the hat were a token of superiority in conversation, and there-
fore not to be used by the criminal to a man of the prosecutor’s
quality, who was likewise vested with a double title to the wall
at the time of their conversation, both as it was the upper hand,
and as it was a shelter from the weather. The evidence being
very full and clear, the jury, without going out of court, declared
their opinion unanimously by the mouth of their foreman, that
the prosecutor was bound in honor to make the sun shine through
the criminal, or, as they afterwards explained themselves, to
whip him through the lungs. -
The censor, knitting his brows into a frown, and looking very
sternly upon the jury, after a little pause, gave them to know,
that this court was erected for the finding out of penalties suit-
able to offences, and to restrain the outrages of private justice ;
and that he expected they should moderate their verdict. The
jury therefore retired, and, being willing to comply with the ad-
vices of the censor, after an hour's consultation, declared their
opinion as follows: 4–
“That in consideration this was Peter Plumb's first offence,
and that there did not appear any malice prepense, in it, as also
that he lived in good reputation among his neighbors, and that
his taking the wall was only se defendendo, the prosecutor should
let him escape with life, and content himself with the slitting of
his nose, and the cutting off both his ears.” Mr. Bickerstaffe,
smiling upon the court, told them, “That he thought the punish-
ment, even under its present mitigation, too severe ; and that
such penalties might be of ill consequence in a trading nation.”
He therefore pronounced sentence against the criminal in the
following manner: “That his hat, which was the instrument
of offence, should be forfeited to the court; that the criminal
should go to the warehouse from whence he came, and
thence, as occasion should require, proceed to the Exchange,
or Garraway’s Coffee-house, in what manner he pleased; but
that neither he, nor any of the family of the Plumbs, should
hereafter appear in the streets of London out of their coaches,
that so the foot-way might be left open and undisturbed for their
betters.” -
Dathan, a peddling Jew, and T. R. , a Welshman, were
indicted by the keeper of an ale-house in Westminster, for
breaking the peace, and two earthen mugs, in a dispute about the
antiquity of their families, to the great detriment of the house,
*.
344 APPENDIX,
and disturbance of the whole neighborhood. Dathan said for
himself, that he was provoked to it by the Welshman, who pre-
tended that the Welsh were an ancienter people than the Jews;
“Whereas,” said he, “I can show by this genealogy in my hand,
that I am the son of Mesheck, that was the son of Naboth, that
was the son of Shalem, that was the son of .” The Welsh-
man here interrupted him, and told him, “That he could pro-
duce Shennalogy as well as himself; for that he was John ap
Rice, ap Shenkin, ap Shones.” He then turned himself to the
censor, and told him in the same broken accent, and with much
warmth, “That the Jew would needs uphold that King Cadwal-
ladar was younger than Issachar.” Mr. Bickerstaffe seemed
very much inclined to give sentence against Dathan, as being a
Jew ; but finding reasons, by some expressions which the Welsh-
man let fall in asserting the antiquity of his family, to suspect
the said Welshman was a Prae Adamite, he suffered the jury to
go out without any previous admonition. After some time they
returned, and gave their verdict, that it appearing the persons
at the bar did neither of them wear a sword, and that conse-
quently they had no right to quarrel upon a point of honor; to
prevent such frivolous appeals for the future, they should both
of them be tossed in the same blanket, and there adjust the
superiority as they could agree it between themselves. The
censor confirmed the verdict. -
Richard Newman was indicted by Major Punto, for having
used the words, “Perhaps it may be so,” in a dispute with the
said Major. The Major urged, that the word, Perhaps, was
questioning his veracity, and that it was an indirect manner of
giving him the lie. Richard Newman had nothing more to say
for himself, than that he intended no such thing, and threw him-
self upon the mercy of the court. The jury brought in their
verdict special. -
Mr. Bickerstaffe stood up, and, after having cast his eyes over
the whole assembly, hemmed thrice. He then acquainted them,
that he had laid down a rule to himself, which he was resolved
never to depart from, and which, as he conceived, would very
much conduce to the shortening the business of the court; “I
mean,” says he, “never to allow of the lie being given by con-
struction, implication, or induction, but by the sole use of the
word itself.” He then proceeded to show the great mischiefs
that had arisen to the English nation from that pernicious mono-
syllable ; that it had bred the most fatal quarrels between the

APPENDIX. - 345
dearest friends; that it had frequently thinned the guards, and
made great havoc in the army ; that it had sometimes weakened
the city trained bands; and, in a word, had destroyed many of
the bravest men in the isle of Great Britain. For the prevention
of which evils for the future, he instructed the jury to present the
word itself as a nuisance in the English tongue; and further
promised them, that he would, upon such their presentment,
publish an edict of the court, for the entire banishment and ex-
clusion of it out of the discourses and conversation of all civil
Societies.
This is a true copy,
CHARLEs LILLIE.
Monday next is set apart for the trial of several female causes.
N. B. The case of the hassock will come on between the
hours of nine and ten.
No. 265. Tuesday, December 19, 1710.
Arbiter hic igitur factus de lite jocosá.— Ovid. Met. *
Continuation of the Journal of the Court of Honor, &c.
As soon as the court was sat, the ladies of the bench pre-
sented, according to order, a table of all the laws now in force,
relating to visits, and visiting-days, methodically digested under
their respective heads, which the censor ordered to be laid upon
the table, and afterwards proceeded upon the business of the day.
Henry Heedless, Esq. was indicted by Colonel Touchy, of
Her Majesty’s trained bands, upon an action of assault and bat-
tery : for that he, the said Mr. Heedless, having espied a feather
upon the shoulder of the said Colonel, struck it off gently with
the end of a walking-staff, value three-pence. It appeared that
the prosecutor did not think himself injured till a few days after
the aforesaid blow was given him ; but that, having ruminated
with himself for several days, and conferred upon it with other
officers of the militia, he concluded, that he had in effect been
cudgelled by Mr. Heedless, and that he ought to resent it accord-
ingly. The counsel for the prosecutor alleged, that the shoulder
was the tenderest part in a man of honor; that it had a natural
antipathy to a stick; and that every touch of it, with anything
made in the fashion of a cane, was to be interpreted as a wound
in that part, and a violation of the person's honor who received
346 APPENDIX.
it. Mr. Heedless replied, that what he had done was out of
kindness to the prosecutor, as not thinking it proper for him to
appear at the head of the trained bands with a feather upon his
shoulder; and further added, that the stick he had made use of
on this occasion was so very small, that the prosecutor could not
have felt it, had he broken it on his shoulders. The censor
hereupon directed the jury to examine into the nature of the
staff, for that a great deal would depend upon that particular.
Upon which he explained to them the different degrees of offence
that might be given by the touch of a crab-tree from that of a
cane, and by the touch of a cane from that of a plain hazel
stick. The jury, after a short perusal of the staff, declared their
opinion, by the mouth of their foreman, that the substance of
the staff was British oak. The censor then observing that there
was some dust on the skirts of the criminal's coat, ordered the
prosecutor to beat it off with the aforesaid oaken plant; “And
thus,” said the censor, “I shall decide this by the law of retali-
ation: if Mr. Heedless did the Colonel a good office, the Colonel
will by this means return it in kind ; and if Mr. Heedless should
at any time boast that he had cudgelled the Colonel, or laid his
staff over his shoulders, the Colonel might boast, in his turn, that
he has brushed Mr. Heedless's jacket, or (to use the phrase of an
ingenious author) that he had rubbed him down with an oaken
towel.”
Benjamin Busy, of London, merchant, was indicted by Jasper
Tattle, Esq., for having pulled out his watch, and looked upon it
thrice, while the said Esquire Tattle was giving him an account
of the funeral of the said Esquire Tattle's first wife. The pris-
oner alleged in his defence, that he was going to buy stocks at
the time when he met the prosecutor; and that, during the story
of the prosecutor, the said stocks rose above two per cent. to the
great detriment of the prisoner. The prisoner further brought
several witnesses, that the said Jasper Tattle, Esq. was a most
notorious story-teller; that before he met the prisoner, he had
hindered one of the prisoner's acquaintance from the pursuit of
his lawful business, with the account of his second marriage;
and that he had detained another by the button of his coat that
very morning, till he had heard several witty sayings and con-
trivances of the prosecutor's eldest son, who was a boy of about
five years of age. Upon the whole matter, Mr. Bickerstaffe dis-
missed the accusation as frivolous, and sentenced the prosecutor
to pay damages to the prisoner for what the prisoner had lost by
we
APPENDIX. 347
giving him so long and patient a hearing. He further repri-
manded the prosecutor very severely, and told him, “That if
he proceeded in his usual manner to interrupt the business of
mankind, he would set a fine upon him for every quarter of an
hour's impertinence, and regulate the said fine according as the
time of the person so injured should appear to be more or less
precious.”
Sir Paul Swash, Kt., was indicted by Peter Double, Gent., for
not returning the bow which he received of the said Peter
Double, on Wednesday, the 6th instant, at the Playhouse, in the
Hay-Market. The prisoner denied the receipt of any such bow,
and alleged in his defence, that the prosecutor would oftentimes
look full in his face, but that when he bowed to the said prose-
cutor, he would take no notice of it, or bow to somebody else
that sat quite on the other side of him. He likewise alleged,
that several ladies had complained of the prosecutor, who, after
ogling them a quarter of an hour, upon their making a courtesy
to him, would not return the civility of a bow. The censor ob-
serving several glances of the prosecutor’s eye, and perceiving
that, when he talked to the court, he looked upon the jury, found
reason to suspect that there was a wrong cast in his sight, which,
upon examination, proved true. The censor therefore ordered
the prisoner (that he might not produce any more confusions in
public assemblies) never to bow to anybody whom he did not
at the same time call to by his name.
Oliver Bluff and Benjamin Browbeat were indicted for going
to fight a duel since the erection of the Court of Honor. It ap-
peared that they were both taken up in the street, as they passed
by the court, in their way to the fields behind Montague House.
The criminals would answer nothing for themselves, but that they
were going to execute a challenge which had been made above
a week before the Court of Honor was erected. The censor
finding some reasons to suspect (by the sturdiness of their be-
havior) that they were not so very brave as they would have
the court believe them, ordered them both to be searched by the
grand jury, who found a breastplate upon the one, and two
quires of paper upon the other. The breastplate was im-
mediately ordered to be hung upon a peg over Mr. Bickerstaffe's
tribunal, and the paper to be laid upon the table for the use of
his clerk. He then ordered the criminals to button up their
bosoms, and, if they pleased, proceed to their duel. Upon which
they both went very quietly out of the court, and retired to their,
348 APPENDIX.
respective lodgings. The court then adjourned till after the holi-
days. *a, Copia Vera.
CHARLEs LILLIE.
* No. VII.
EXTRACTS FROM THE SPECTATOR.
I HAVE elsewhere (ante, p. 163) spoken in brief terms of the grief of
Mr. Thornhill after he slew Sir Cholmeley Dering, in 1711. Addi-
son, in No. 84 of the Spectator, relates the sorrows of the unhappy
survivor, under the assumed name of Spinamont; and in No. 97 of
the same work we have a continuation of his views on the subject
of duelling generally. Both papers are inserted entire, as contain-
ing remarks as true now as in the early part of the last century,
whether as relates to individuals borne down and faint under the “in-
consolable calamity” of success with the pistol, or to “the force of a
#. custom’ under which “the duellist kills his friend whom he
oves.”
No. 84. Wednesday, June 6, 1711.
Quis talia fando
Myrmidonum, Dolopumve, aut duri miles Ulyssei,
Temperet a lachrymis? Virg. Æn. ii. v. 6.
Who can such woes relate without a tear,
As stern Ulysses must have wept to hear?
Looking over the old manuscript wherein the private actions
of Pharamond are set down by way of table-book, I found many
things which gave me great delight, and as human life turns upon
the same principles and passions in all ages, I thought it very
proper to take minutes of what passed in that age for the instruc-
tion of this. The antiquary who lent me these papers gave me
a character of Eucrate, the favorite of Pharamond, extracted from
an author who lived in that court. The account he gives both
of the prince and this his faithful friend will not be improper to
insert here, because I may have occasion to mention many of
their conversations, into which these memorials of them may
give light. -
“Pharamond, when he had a mind to retire for an hour or
two from the hurry of business and fatigue of ceremony, made a
signal to Eucrate, by putting his hand to his face, placing his
arm negligently on a window, or some such action as appeared
*

APPENDIX. 349
indifferent to all the rest of the company. Upon such notice,
unobserved by others, (for their entire intimacy was always a
secret,) Eucrate repaired to his own apartment to receive the
king. There was a secret access to this part of the court, at
which Eucrate used to admit many whose mean appearance in
the eyes of the ordinary waiters and door-keepers made them
be repulsed from other parts of the palace. Such as these were
let in here by order of Eucrate, and had audiences of Phara-
mond. This entrance Pharamond called “The Gate of the Un-
happy,” and the tears of the afflicted who came before him, he
would say, were bribes received by Eucrate; for Eucrate had
the most compassionate spirit of all men living, except his gen-
erous master, who was always kindled at the least affliction which
was communicated to him. In regard for the miserable, Eucrate
took particular care that the common forms of distress, and the
idle pretenders to sorrow, about courts, who wanted only sup-
plies to luxury, should never obtain favor by his means; but the
distresses which arise from the many inexplicable occurrences
that happen among men, the unaccountable alienation of parents
from their children, cruelty of husbands to wives, poverty occa-
sioned from shipwreck or fire, the falling out of friends, or such
other terrible disasters to which the life of man is exposed ; in
cases of this nature, Eucrate was the patron; and enjoyed this
part of the royal favor so much without being envied, that it was
never inquired into by whose means what no one else cared for
doing was brought about.
“One evening when Pharamond came into the apartment of
Eucrate, he found him extremely dejected; upon which he asked,
(with a smile that was natural to him,) “What, is there any one
too miserable to be relieved by Pharamond, that Eucrate is mel-
ancholy P” “I fear there is,” answered the favorite, “a person
without, of a good air, well dressed, and though a man in the
strength of his life, seems to faint under some inconsolable ca-
lamity. All his features seem suffused with agony of mind; but
I can observe in him that it is more inclined to break away in
tears than rage. I asked him what he would have. He said
he would speak to Pharamond. I desired his business. He could
hardly say to me, “Eucrate, carry me to the king; my story is
not to be told twice, — I fear I shall not be able to speak it at
all.” Pharamond commanded Eucrate to let him enter; he did
so, and the gentleman approached the king with an air which
spoke him under the greatest concern in what manner to demean
.
30
350 APPENDIX.
himself. The king, who had a quick discerning, relieved him
from the oppression he was under, and, with the most beautiful
complacency, said to him, “Sir, do not add to that load of sor-
row I see in your countenance the awe of my presence. Think
you are speaking to your friend. If the circumstances of your
distress will admit of it, you shall find me so.” To whom the
stranger: “O excellent Pharamond, name not a friend to the
unfortunate Spinamont. I had one, but he is dead by my own
hand; but, O Pharamond, though it was by the hand of Spina-
mont, it was by the guilt of Pharamond. I come not, O excel-
lent prince, to implore your pardon ; I come to relate my sorrow,
a sorrow too great for human life to support; from henceforth
shall all occurrences appear dreams, or short intervals of amuse-
ment, for this one affliction which has seized my very being.
Pardon me, O Pharamond, if my griefs give me leave, that I
lay before you in the anguish of a wounded mind, that you, good
as you are, are guilty of the generous blood spilt this day by
this unhappy hand. O that it had perished before that instant l”
Here the stranger paused, and, recollecting his mind, after some
little meditation, he went on in a calmer tone and gesture as
follows : — -
“There is an authority due to distress, and as none of huma
race is above the reach of sorrow, none should be above the
hearing the voice of it; I am sure Pharamond is not. Know,
then, that I have this morning unfortunately killed in a duel the
man whom of all men living I most loved. I command myself
too much in your royal presence, to say, Pharamond gave me my
friend 1 Pharamond has taken him from me! - I will not say,
Shall the merciful Pharamond destroy his own subjects P Will the
father of his country murder his people 2 But the merciful Phar-
amond does destroy his subjects, the father of his country does
murder his people. Fortune is so much the pursuit of mankind,
that all glory and honor is in the power of a prince, because he
has the distribution of their fortunes. It is therefore the inad-
vertency, negligence, or guilt of princes to let anything grow
into custom which is against their laws. A court can make
fashion and duty walk together; it can never, without the guilt
of a court, happen that it shall not be unfashionable to do what
is unlawful. But, alas ! in the dominions of Pharamond, by the
force of a tyrant custom, which is misnamed a point of honor,
the duellist kills his friend whom he loves; and the judge con-
demns the duellist while he approves his behavior. Shame is

APPENDIX. 351
the greatest of all evils ; what avail laws, when death only at-
tends the breach of them, and shame attends obedience to them P
As for me, O Pharamond, were it possible to describe the name-
less kinds of compunctions and tenderness I feel, when I reflect
upon the little accidents in our former familiarity, my mind swells
into sorrow which cannot be resisted enough to be silent in the
presence of Pharamond.” With that he fell into a flood of tears,
and wept aloud. “Why should not Pharamond hear the anguish
he only can relieve others from in time to come 2 Let him hear
from me, what they feel who have given death by the false mercy
of his administration, and form to himself the vengeance called
for by those who have perished by his negligence.” R.
No. 97. Thursday, June 21, 1711.
Projecere animas Virg. Æn. vi. 436.
They prodigally threw their lives away.
Among the loose papers which I have frequently spoken of
heretofore, I find a conversation between Pharamond and Eucrate
upon the subject of duels, and the copy of an edict issued in con-
sequence of that discourse.
Eucrate argued, that nothing but the most severe and vindic-
tive punishment, such as placing the bodies of the offenders in
chains, and putting them to death by the most exquisite torments,
would be sufficient to extirpate a crime which had so long pre-
vailed, and was so firmly fixed in the opinion of the world as
great and laudable. The king answered, “that indeed instances
of ignominy were necessary in the cure of this evil; but, consid-
ering that it prevailed only among such as had a nicety in their
sense of honor, and that it often happened that a duel was fought
to save appearances to the world, when both parties were in
their hearts in amity and reconciliation to each other, it was evi-
dent that turning the mode another way would effectually put a
stop to what had being only as a mode; that to such persons
poverty and shame were torments sufficient; that he would not
go further in punishing in others crimes which he was satisfied
he himself was most guilty of, in that he might have prevented
them by speaking his displeasure sooner.” Besides which the
king said, “he was in general averse to tortures, which was put-
ting human nature itself, rather than the criminal, to disgrace;
and that he would be sure not to use this means where the crime
was but an ill effect arising from a laudable cause, the fear of
{&
352 APPENDIX.
shame.” The king, at the same time, spoke with much grace
upon the subject of mercy; and repented of many acts of that
kind which had a magnificent aspect in the doing, but dreadful
consequences in the example. “Mercy to particulars,” he ob-
served, “was cruelty in the general. That though a prince could
not revive a dead man by taking the life of him who killed him,
neither could he make reparation to the next that should die by
the evil example : or answer to himself for the partiality in not
pardoning the next as well as the former offender.”—“As for
me,” says Pharamond, “I have conquered France, and yet have
given laws to my people. The laws are my methods of life;
they are not a diminution, but a direction to my power. I am
still absolute to distinguish the innocent and the virtuous, to give
honors to the brave and generous; I am absolute in my good-
will ; none can oppose my bounty, or prescribe rules for my
favor. While I can, as I please, reward the good, I am under
no pain that I cannot pardon the wicked : for which reason,” con-
tinued Pharamond, “I will effectually put a stop to this evil, by
exposing no more the tenderness of my nature to the importunity
of having the same respect to those who are miserable by their
fault, and those who are so by their misfortune. Flatterers,”
concluded the king, smiling, “repeat to us princes, that we are
Heaven's vicegerents; let us be so, and let the only thing out of
our power be to do ill.” ---
Soon after the evening wherein Pharamond and Eucrate had
this conversation, the following edict was published against
duels: — - -
Pharamond's Edict against Duels.
“PHARAMOND, King of the Gauls, to all his loving subjects send-
eth greeting. -
“Whereas it has come to our royal notice and observation, that
in contempt of all laws, divine and human, it is of late become a
custom among the nobility and gentry of this our kingdom, upon
slight and trivial, as well as great and urgent provocations, to in-
vite each other into the field, there by their own hands, and of
their own authority, to decide their controversies by combat; we
have thought fit to take the said custom into our royal considera-
tion, and find, upon inquiry into the usual causes whereon such
fatal decisions have arisen, that by this wicked custom, maugre
all the precepts of our holy religion, and the rules of right rea-
son, the greatest act of the human mind, forgiveness of injuries,
^ tº
&
. . . ** .
--------4–2-º---
|
APPENDIX. 353
is become vile and shameful; that the rules of good society and
virtuous conversation are hereby inverted ; that the loose, the
vain, and the impudent insult the careful, the discreet, and the
modest ; that all virtue is suppressed, and all vice supported, in
the one act of being capable to dare to the death. We have
also further, with great sorrow of mind, observed that this dread-
ful action, by long impunity (our royal attention being employed
upon matters of more general concern) is become honorable, and
the refusal to engage in it ignominious. In these our royal cares
and inquiries, we are yet further made to understand, that the
persons of most eminent worth and most hopeful abilities, accom-
panied with the strongest passion for true glory, are such as are
most liable to be involved in the dangers arising from this license.
Now taking the said premises into our serious consideration, and
well weighing that all such emergencies (wherein the mind is
incapable of commanding itself, and where the injury is too sud-
den or too exquisite to be borne) are particularly provided for by
laws heretofore enacted ; and that the qualities of less injuries,
like those of ingratitude, are too nice and deligate to come under
general rules; we do resolve to blot this fashion, or wantonness
of anger, out of the minds of our subjects, by our royal resolu-
tions declared in this 'edict as follow : — -
“No person who either sends or accepts a challenge, or the
posterity of either, though no death ensues thereupon, shall be,
after the publication of this our edict, capable of bearing office
in these our dominions. *
“The person who shall prove the sending or receiving a chal-
lenge, shall receive to his own use and property the whole per-
sonal estate of both parties; and their real estate shall be imme-
diately vested in the next heir of the offenders, in as ample
manner as if the said offenders were actually deceased.
“In cases where the laws (which we have already granted to
our subjects) admit of an appeal for blood, when the criminal
is condemned by the said appeal, he shall not only suffer death,
but his whole estate, real, mixed, and personal, shall from the
hour of his death be vested in the next heir of the person whose
blood he spilt.
“That it shall not hereafter be in our royal power, or that of
our successors, to pardon the said offences, or restore the offend-
ers in their estates, honors, or blood, for ever. ,-
“Given at our court at Blois, the 8th of February, 420, in the
second year of our reign.” - T.
N .
30 * -
354 APPENDIX.
No. VIII.
FROM THE GUARDIAN.
“Blois, May 15, N. S.
“SIR,-Because I am at present out of the road of news, I
shall send you a story that was lately given me by a gentleman
of this country, who is descended from one of the persons con-
cerned in the relation, and very inquisitive to know if there be
any of the family now in England.
“I shall only premise to it, that this story is preserved with
great care among the writings of this gentleman's family, and
that it has been given to two or three of our English nobility,
when they were in these parts, who could not return any satis-
factory answer to the gentleman, whether there be any of that
family now remaining in Great Britain.
“In the reign of King John there lived a nobleman called John
de Sigonia, lord of that place in ‘Tourraine. His brothers were
Philip and Briant. Briant, when very young, was made one of
the French king's pages, and served him in that quality when he
was taken prisoner by the English. The king of England
chanced to see the youth, and, being much pleased with his per-
son and behavior, begged him of the king his prisoner. It hap-
pened, some years after this, that John, the other brother, who
in the course of the war had raised himself to a considerable post
in the French army, was taken prisoner by Briant, who at that
time was an officer in the king of England's guards. Briant
knew nothing of his brother, and, being naturally of a haughty
temper, treated him very insolently, and more like a criminal
than a prisoner of war. This John resented so highly, that he
challenged him to a single combat. The challenge was accepted,
and time and place assigned them by the king's appointment.
Both appeared on the day prefixed, and entered the lists com-
pletely armed, amidst a great multitude of spectators. Their
first encounters were very furious, and the success equal on both
sides; till, after some toil and bloodshed, they were parted by
their seconds to fetch breath, and prepare themselves afresh for
the combat. Briant, in the mean time, had cast his eye upon his
brother's escutcheon, which he saw agree in all points with his
own. I need not tell you after this with what joy and surprise
the story ends. King Edward, who knew all the particulars of

APPENDIX. 355
it, as a mark of his esteem, gave to each of them, by the king of
France's consent, the following coat of arms, which I will send
you in the original language, not being herald enough to blazon
it in English.”
“Le Roi d'Angleterre, par permission du Roi de France, pour
perpetuelle memoire de leurs grands faits d'armes et fidelite en-
vers leurs rois, leur donna par ampliation a leurs armes en une
croia d'argent cantonee de quatre coquilles d'or en champ de
sable, qu'ils avoient auparavant, une endenteleuse faite en facons
de croia de gueulle inserée au dedans de la ditte croix d'argent
et par le milieu d'icelle qui est participation des deua, croia, que
portent les dits rois en la guerre.”
No. IX.
RIDICULOUS QUARRELS.
THE Lady Honoria and her daughter Flavia, with their lovers, Dick
Crastin and Tom Tulip, are not creatures of the imagination. They
exist in real life, in every age of the world. The Dicks and Toms of
our day and country are not often the lovers of a parent and her child,
and do not often quarrel for the precise causes related in the Spectator;
but they do fall out, and the Dicks do send challenges, on grounds quite
as ridiculous as did those of England in the time of Queen Anne. In-
deed, several stories not wholly unlike that told of the lovers of the
ladies who, in the year 1711, lived “within the liberties of the city of
Westminster,” would have appeared in the appropriate places in this
work, but for reasons which are obvious without explanation. It is suf
ficient for my purpose to employ the polished pen of Addison to illus-
trate a class of gallants who conduct themselves in a manner to excite the
mirth of neighborhoods.
Thursday, June 14, 1711.
In furias ignemgue ruunt: amor omnibus idem.
- Virg. Georg. iii. 244.
f
They rush into the flame; -
For love is lord of all, and is in all the same. — Dryden.
Though the subject I am now going upon would be much more
properly the foundation of a comedy, I cannot forbear inserting
the circumstance which pleased me in the account a young
lady gave me of the loves of a family in town, which shall be
-.
:.
i

356 APPENDIX.
nameless; or rather, for the better sound and elevation of the
history, instead of Mr. and Mrs. Such-a-one, I shall call them by
feigned names. Without further preface, you are to know, that
within the liberties of the city of Westminster lives the Lady
Honoria, a widow about the age of forty, of a healthy constitu-
tion, gay temper, and elegant person. She dresses a little too
much like a girl, affects a childish fondness in the tone of her
voice, sometimes a pretty sullenness in the leaning of her head,
and now and then a downcast of her eyes on her fan. Neither
her imagination nor her health would ever give her to know that
she is turned of twenty; but that in the midst of these pretty
softnesses, and airs of delicacy and attraction, she has a tall
daughter within a fortnight of fifteen, who impertinently comes
into the room, and towers so much towards woman, that her
mother is always checked by her presence, and every charm of
Honoria droops at the entrance of Flavia. The agreeable Flavia
would be what she is not, as well as her mother Honoria ; but all
their beholders are more partial to an affectation of what a per-
son is growing up to, than of what has been already enjoyed, and
is gone for ever. It is therefore allowed to Flavia to look for-
ward, but not to Honoria to look back. Flavia is no way de-
pendent on her mother with relation to her fortune, for which
reason they live almost upon an equality in conversation; and as,
Honoria has given Flavia to understand that it is ill-bred to be
always calling mother, Flavia is as well pleased never to be called
child. It happens by this means, that these ladies are generally
rivals in all places where they appear; and the words mother
and daughter never pass between them but out of spite. Flavia
one night at a play, observing Honoria draw the eyes of several
in the pit, called to a lady who sat by her, and bid her ask her
mother to lend her her snuff-box for a moment. Another time,
when a lover of Honoria was on his knees, beseeching the favor
to kiss her hand, Flavia rushing into the room, kneeled down by
him and asked her blessing. Several of these contradictory acts
of duty have raised between them such a coldness, that they gen-
erally converse when they are in mixed company by way of
talking at one another, and not to one another. Honoria is ever
complaining of a certain sufficiency in the young women of this
age, who assume to themselves an authority of carrying all things
before them, as if they were possessors of the esteem of mankind,
and all who were but a year before them in the world were neg-
lected or deceased. Flavia, upon such provocation, is sure to
*
APPENDIX. 357
observe, that there are people who can resign nothing, and know
not how to give up what they know they cannot hold ; that there
are those who will not allow youth their follies, not because they
are themselves past them, but because they love to continue in
them. These beauties rival each other on' all occasions ; not
that they have always had the same lovers, but each has kept up
a vanity to show the other the charms of her lover. Dick Cras-
tin and Tom Tulip, among many others, have of late been pre-
tenders in this family; Dick to Honoria, Tom to Flavia. Dick
is the only surviving beau of the last age, and Tom almost the
only one that keeps up that order of men in this.
I wish I could repeat the little circumstances of a conversation
of the four lovers, with the spirit in which the young lady I had
my account from represented it, at a visit where I had the honor
to be present; but it seems Dick Crastin, the admirer of Honoria,
and Tom Tulip, the pretender to Flavia, were purposely admit-
ted together by the ladies, that each might show the other that
her lover had the superiority in the accomplishments of that sort
of creature whom the sillier part of women call a fine gentle-
man. As this age has a much more gross taste in courtship, as
well as in everything else, than the last had, these gentlemen
are instances of it in their different manner of application.
Tulip is ever making allusions to the vigor of his person, the
sinewy force of his make ; while Crastin professes a wary ob-
servation of the turns of his mistress's mind. Tulip gives himself
the air of a resistless ravisher, Crastin practises that of a skilful,
lover. Poetry is the inseparable property of every man in love;
and as men of wit write verses on those occasions, the rest of the
world repeat the verses of others. These servants of the ladies
were used to imitate their manner of conversation, and allude to
one another, rather than interchange discourse in what they said
when they met. Tulip the other day seized his mistress's hand,
and repeated out of Ovid's Art of Love: -
“'T is I can in soft battles pass the night,
Yet rise next morning vigorous for the fight,
‘Fresh as the day, and active as the light.”
Upon hearing this, Crastin, with an air of deference, played
with Honoria’s fan, and repeated:
“Sedley has that prevailing gentle art,
That can with a resistless charm impart
The loosest wishes to the chastest heart:
Raise such a conflict, kindle such a fire,
sº
358 APPENDIX.
Between declining virtue and desire,
Till the poor vanquished maid dissolves away,
In dreams all night, in sighs and tears all day.” +
When Crastin had uttered these verses with a tenderness
which at once spoke passion and respect, Honoria cast a trium-
phant glance at Flavia, as exulting in the elegance of Crastin’s
courtship, and upbraiding her with the homeliness of Tulip's.
Tulip understood the reproach, and in return began to applaud
the wisdom of old amorous gentlemen, who turned their mis-
tress's imagination as far as possible from what they had long
themselves forgot, and ended his discourse with a sly commenda-
tion of the doctrine of Platonic love ; at the same time he ran
over, with a laughing eye, Crastin's thin legs, meagre looks, and
spare body. The old gentleman immediately left the room with
some disorder, and the conversation fell upon untimely passion,
after-love, and unseasonable youth. Tulip sung, danced, moved
before the glass, led his mistress half a minuet, hummed
“Celia the fair, in the bloom of fifteen!”
when there came a servant with a letter to him, which was as
follows: —
“SIR,- I understand very well what you meant by your
mention of Platonic love. I shall be glad to meet you immedi-
ately in Hyde Park, or behind Montague House, or attend you to
Barn Elms, or any other fashionable place that’s fit for a gentle-
man to die in, that you shall appoint for, sir,
... -- • “Your most humble servant,
“RICHARD CRASTIN.”
Tulip's color changed at the reading of this epistle; for which
reason his mistress snatched it to read the contents. While she
was doing so, Tulip went away; and the ladies, now agreeing in
a common calamity, bewailed together the danger of their lovers.
They immediately undressed to go out, and took hackneys to
prevent mischief; but, after alarming all parts of the town, Cras-
tin was found by his widow in his pumps at Hyde Park, which
appointment Tulip never kept, but made his escape into the
country. Flavia tears her hair for his inglorious safety, curses
and despises her charmer, and is fallen into love with Crastin:
which is the first part of the history of the rival mother. R.
* Lord Rochester's Imitation of the First Satire of Horace.
l
º

APPENDIX. 359
No. X.
DEATH OF HON. JONATHAN CILLEY.
Extracts from the Debate in the House of Representatives, on
Wednesday, February 28, 1838.
HoN. JoHN FAIRFIELD, of Maine, as soon as the Journal was
read, rose, and asked leave to offer the following resolution: —
“Resolved, That a committee consisting of seven members be
appointed to investigate the causes which led to the death of the
Hon. Jonathan Cilley, late a member of this House, and the
circumstances connected therewith, and report thereon to the
House.
“Resolved, That said committee have power to send for per-
sons and papers, and have leave to sit during the sessions of the
House.”
The rules were suspended, when Mr. Fairfield said: “Mr.
President, entertaining the views and feelings which I do enter-
tain in regard to the awful tragedy in which certain members of
this House lately participated, I could not refrain from offering
the resolutions which have just been read. Sir, if I had held
back, and refused to move in this affair, “the voice of my broth-
er's blood would cry to me from the ground.’ My late col-
league and friend has been shot down and deprived of life in a
manner, and under circumstances, that seem to me most impe-
riously to demand an investigation. It is due to the surviving
family and friends of the deceased, that we should take cogni-
zance of this affair ; it is due to ourselves, to our country, to
humanity, and to God; and I trust that no member will shrink
from the high and solemn responsibility thus cast upon him.
But, aside from the peculiar circumstances of this case, and our
peculiar duties resulting from them, it appears to me that an
opportunity is presented, which every good man should be quick
to improve, for assailing the barbarous and inhuman practice of
duelling, — a practice which does violence to the laws of God,
to the best feelings of our own nature, and to the dictates of
reason, — a practice which is entirely behind and unworthy of
the age of civilization in which we live, and which should unite
the earnest and faithful efforts of every friend to his species for
- its extermination.”
He was followed by the Hon. William Cost Johnson, of Mary-
e - O
360 APPENDIX.
land, who remarked that he had voted against the suspension of
the rules to introduce these resolutions, because, on hearing them
read, he came to the conclusion that no good could result from
them. No one could feel greater grief than himself at the ca-
lamity which befell the friends of the gentleman whose death we
all now mourned, but he had voted against bringing in these res-
olutions because he did not know what power Congress had to
suppress duelling. It was an evil in the state of society which
made it necessary in some cases for gentlemen to resort to this
mode of settling personal disputes, and he much regretted that
it was so ; but he did not apprehend that this inquiry was going
to correct the evil, or that any salutary good could be effected
by this inquiry. As to the particulars in this case, if it was de-
sired to obtain them, the morning papers gave all the facts and
circumstances connected with it ; and if it was intended to enact
an anti-duelling law, he would ask where, under the Constitution,
you obtained the right to enact it. That was a matter which
belonged to the States alone, and many of them have passed
laws on this subject; and, in his opinion, it would be a usurpa-
tion of power for Congress to undertake to act on this subject.
He should vote against this resolution, because he considered that
it would be a reflection upon all the parties connected with the
unfortunate occurrence alluded to in the resolution. He looked
upon it as reflecting upon the wisdom and the justice of the par-
ties engaged in it. He would ask any gentleman, if either of
these parties had been guilty of any moral delinquency, or of
any act which would bring him so far within the rules and laws
of the House as to justify his expulsion ? If any gentleman
would rise in his place, and state that either of them had violated
the rules of honor, or done any act which would make him an
unfit associate for the members of this House, he would go as far
as any one to have this inquiry instituted ; he would vote, not
only for a committee of inquiry, but he would vote to expel such
individual from the House; and he would almost go to expel
him from off the face of the earth. But no such thing had been
intimated against any member of the House, and what right have
we to go into this matter 2 - What right have we to inquire into
the private relations of gentlemen 2 What right have we to in-
stitute ourselves into a board of honor to inquire into a matter
of this kind 2* He would tell gentlemen that it would be an
* The italics are the author's.
* W. ,
APPENDIX. 361
unpleasant duty to serve on a committee of this kind, and that it
would require more than ordinary nerve to serve on it. He
would tell them that, if this committee was raised, it would be
the occasion of much strife and difficulty. He should not like
to serve on such a committee unless he should prepare himself
at once for such encounters. He considered it entirely im-
proper that the House should agitate this question at the present
tlme.
The Hon. Amasa J. Parker, of New York, said he regretted
that he found himself compelled to differ in opinion from his
friend from Maryland (Mr. Johnson); that he had heard from
him no good reason expressed against the adoption of the reso-
lutions. It was said that Congress had no power to legislate on
this subject, and that that power was reserved to the States.
Surely Congress has the power to act in reference to the District
of Columbia, and it could not be denied that the House of Rep-
resentatives had jurisdiction over its own members. His friend
had said, that, if any member would state on this floor that the
unfortunate transaction had not been conducted according to the
rules of the “code of honor,” he would vote for this resolution.
Mr. P. said he made no assertion of that kind. He did not pro-
fess to be skilled in the nice technicality of those rules, as they
were understood by some gentlemen here; that with his con-
stituents the rules of honor were the rules of law, religion, and
morality ; but he would say that the transaction referred to
was a violation of the laws of God and man, and called impe-
riously upon this House to guard against the recurrence of such
heart-rending scenes; and every consideration of duty to the
public and to ourselves required prompt and decisive action.
His friend had said that the reference of this subject to a com-
mittee would probably lead to further collision, and a repetition
of personal conflict. Mr. P. said he could not believe it. He
had yet to learn that a member of this House could not on this
floor, or in committee, fearlessly express his opinions, and dis-
charge his duty, without fear of a personal attack. He had no
fears on that subject for himself.
He admitted that, if the committee were to be confined to the
question whether “the code of honor” had been departed from,
personal controversy might grow out of it. Gentlemen might
well differ in discussing unwritten rules of such cobweb fineness,
and about which, sir, honorable gentlemen might well differ in
opinion. Sir, that committee would look beyond such limits;
31 -
362 APPENDIX.
they would have in view the honor and character of the nation
and of this House, and the general welfare of the people.
It was said public opinion sanctioned the practice of duelling.
He thought otherwise ; and he was sure it would not be coun-
tenanced in those sections of the country with which he was fa-
miliar. But if public sentiment tolerated such a practice in any
part of the country, it was the more important to adopt such
measures on this occasion as would serve to correct it. He cer-
tainly was not disposed to act too hastily. It was proper to refer
the matter to a committee. They would act deliberately, and
he hoped would recommend some measures that would remedy
the evil. He should therefore vote for the resolutions.
Mr. Dawson said that no gentlemen regretted more than him-
self the unfortunate occurrence which had taken place, but he
considered that, when we were about to involve the feelings of
all the gentlemen connected with the affair, we ought to pause
before we acted. He would inquire of gentlemen what the
result of this inquiry would be, and what benefit could accrue
to the community from it. He admitted that Congress had a
right to pass a law to prohibit duelling in the District of Colum-
bia, and for such a measure, when brought forward, he would
vote ; but he would ask gentlemen what good was expected to
result from this inquiry. This matter had no relation to the
business of the public, so that, if it was gone into, it must be
looked upon as an inquiry into the private doings of the mem-
bers of the House out of these walls, and apart from their legis-
lative character. In his opinion, this inquiry would only add to
the excitement, and bring the state of the public mind to such
lengths, as might be regretted by all of us.
If gentlemen desired by this inquiry to get arguments in favor
of a law to prohibit duelling, he thought there was no necessity
for it, because, in his opinion, no argument was needed to sup-
port such a measure. In the name of morality and of religion,
he would say, let such a law be passed ; but he would regret to
see an inquiry of this kind instituted. Pass such a law, and do
all that can be done in future to prevent it, but do not institute
an inquiry iuto the present case for the purpose of gratifying the
public mind, or for any other purpose. He referred to the dif.
ficulty of making an inquiry into a matter which had been con-
/ ducted solely upon the principles of honor,” which were only
* The italics are the author's.
APPENDIX. 363
recognized by a portion of our people, and trusted that the
House would be satisfied by adopting a remedy for the future,
without going into an examination of the past. To vote for
such a proposition as that would be as far as he could go, and
he hoped the House would go no further.
No. XI.
DUELLING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Extracts from the Debate in the Senate of the United States, on
the Passage of “The Bill to prohibit the giving or accepting
a Challenge in the District of Columbia to fight a Duel, and
for the Punishment thereof.” in March and April, 1838.
The HoN. THoMAs CLAYTON, of Delaware, on the 30th of
March, expressed his objections to duelling in a very pointed
manner, and his sincere desire to do all in his power to suppress
it. He very much doubted, however, the efficacy of the bill
before them. Such was the severity of some of its provisions,
that it would be next to impossible to procure convictions under
it. And there were other objections which he could not recon-
cile to his mind. One of the provisions sought to make the
sending of a challenge felony, which was only a misdemeanor
in the eye of the common law. Mr. Clayton argued the subject
at considerable length. He thought the provisions of the bill were
not calculated to subserve the purposes for which they were in-
tended. While he admitted the practice of duelling to be both
illegal and immoral, yet he said it was not of that class of crimes
which should subject offenders to the cells of a penitentiary, and
make them the associates of the vilest felons. There was noth-
ing in the offence that was either base, mean, or sordid ; neither
were those likely to be engaged in it persons whom we would
dare to send to a penitentiary, to be classed with thieves and
vagabonds. The moral sense of the community would be
shocked at such a measure, and such a law would be rendered a
mere nullity, from the interference of the Executive prerogative.
Hé deprecated duelling as much as any man could do, and was
disposed to go all reasonable lengths to prevent it. On the
whole, he believed some legal provision necessary. If he could
get the modification he desired, he would vote for the bill as
364 APPENDIX.
amended by the Judiciary Committee, although he sincerely be-
lieved it would not have the good effect its friends designed.
Mr. Prentiss, of Vermont, replied at some length, contending
that the practice of duelling was condemned by all laws, human
and divine ; that it was regarded as a crime by every govern-
ment in Christendom, was subversive of the great principles of
the Christian religion, and ought not to be tolerated by any
Christian people. Mr. P. looked as much to the moral power
that this law would have, as to its penal enactments. He asked
if any man of honor could allow himself to fight a duel after the
passage of such a law 2 The subject was, in his opinion, a mo-
mentous one. We were acting not for the present time, but the
passage of this bill would have its due weight on all after gen-
erations. The people of this country expect, nay, demand of us,
some enactment by which this odious and sinful practice may
be discontinued and for ever prevented.
Mr. Linn, of Missouri, was of opinion that the Senator from
Delaware had treated the subject with so much sound practical
sense, that little else could be left to be said on the subject.
What community (said Mr. L.) could be found that would pro-
nounce a man either a murderer or a felon, who might have
chanced to kill another in fair and equal combat P No man, he
was persuaded, that came to act on his responsibility as a juror,
would be prepared to render such a verdict. Many of the States
had passed severe penal enactments in relation to this matter,
and yet where was the State where such laws had been carried
into effect? Other legislatures again had sought milder remedies,
such as punishing duelling by disfranchising their citizens, ren-
dering them for ever after incapable of holding offices of profit
or trust, honor or emolument; such laws, he maintained, had a
more wholesome action than those severe, unjust, and cruel en-
actments, because the one was generally carried into effect,
while the other was little better than a dead letter. To illustrate
the effect of public opinion on this subject, Mr. L. instanced a
case in his own State, where the people were as much adverse
to fighting as those of any other in the Union, (though he was
aware that a contrary opinion prevailed among many in relation
to Missouri,) where a small man, for a supposed offence, was
cruelly lashed by a large one, the result of which was a chal-
lenge on the part of the small one to fight, in which duel the
large man was shot twice, the last wound mortal. The survivor
was found guilty under the laws of Missouri, when a petition was

APPENDIX. 365
got up, signed almost unanimously by the people, and pre-
sented to the Legislature, which body remitted the penalties
almost by acclamation ; and so Mr. L. said it would be in all
like cases, – either the Legislature or Executive would step in to
counteract the law. If such a bill could be introduced as would
strike at the root of the evil, it would cheerfully have his sup-
port. He was aware that duelling was not defensible on princi-
ples of Christianity, neither was national warfare ; and yet how
frequently had it been engaged in, and justly too, by Christian
nations. All the Legislatures of the Union have concurred in
denouncing the practice of duelling as evil in itself, and yet have
we not seen them come in to stay the laws. From what little
he had seen, it appeared to him that fighting was like marrying,
the more barriers that were erected against it, the surer were
they to come together. *
Mr. Smith, of Connecticut, spoke long and vehemently in
favor of the bill, maintaining that all enactments against crime
had grown out of some past act of villany that shocked the moral
sense of the community. The object of this law was not so
much to prevent those fond of duelling from engaging in it, as
to protect those coming from States where the people were not
fond of murder or killing in any shape. For his own part he
was not afraid of any man with pistol or sword ; but he advo-
cated the bill to protect the representatives of New England
from those gentlemanly assassins or banditti, who might seek to
call them out for words spoken in debate, and shoot them in a
fair and gentlemanly manner. Mr. S. alluded, in no measured
terms, to the late transaction, in which a representative had lost
his life ; and said, if the instigator of that murder had been in
Connecticut, he would no more have escaped than if he had
gone up and shot down his victim in the street. Mr. S. was for
arresting this practice in its incipiency, by striking at once it
the root of the evil, and making all persons, however remotely
concerned, punishable. He thought the man that advised to
such a step was as bad as the principal, and would treat him.
accordingly. Mr. S. could not draw any distinction between a
murder in a duel, and out of it; and he maintained there was
none, save that which grew out of the morbid imagination of
gentlemen on such matters. Was not the effect the same to the
bereaved wife, – the children, made orphans ? and was not the
moral sense of the community alike shocked 2 These were
questions for the advocates of duelling to answer. He thought
*...
31 * -
366 A PPENDIX.
the country bound to crect some barrier against this infamous
system, or by and by the people, who send their representa-
tives to Congress, would have to accompany them with a body-
guard, armed with swords and pistols for their protection. If a
man would, in contravention of the laws of God and man, seek
to fight duels, he (Mr. S.) was clear for inflicting upon him that
punishment which should be meted to the criminal of the worst
dve.
”. Clayton spoke some time in favor of an amendment which
he offered, to wit, subjecting persons engaged in a duel to im-
prisonment for a term not exceeding two years, and a fine not
exceeding two thousand dollars, and to be made for ever after
ineligible to any office within the gift of the government. Mr.
C. dwelt on the efficacy of such laws in his own State, where
duelling was once quite common, but had now entirely ceased.
Even the shooting of pistols, which had been practised as an
amusement, had, since the passage of the law, gone entirely out
of fashion. &
Mr. Grundy, of Tennessee, felt disposed to act in this matter
without reference to any occurrences of recent date ; he had .
found it best, in all subjects of legislation, not to allude to topics
calculated to excite. In the year 1829, an act (which he had
some agency in compiling), somewhat similar to this in its pro-
visions, was passed by the Legislature of Tennessee, providing
for the punishment of not less than three nor more than ten
years’ confinement. There was also some penalty inflicted
upon the sending of a challenge, and he thought that law had
acted beneficially, as duels were certainly less frequent in his
State since its passage. Mr. G. thought, if this bill were passed,
or something like it in its provisions, that it would have a pow-
erful effect on public opinion, and certainly no man that voted
for it could ever fight a duel afterwards. All the Senate could
do was to provide such enactments as were deemed best calcu-
lated to put a stop to the practice, though he was aware that,
after all their care, cases might arise where the laws would not
be likely to bind. Duelling had no advocates in the abstract,
and all united in condemning it, and yet there were times when
it was persisted in notwithstanding. Mr. G. could not agree
with Senators, that the difficulty of conviction in such case rested
with the juries, as such persons were generally opposed to it;
but he rather thought it owing to the difficulty of obtaining proof
to convict. The seconds were in the eye of the law particeps
arrespx. 367
criminis, and either would not attend, or if they did, under the
plea of not criminating themselves, would refuse to answer. He
was not prepared to say that the amendment of the Senator
from Delaware might not have the happiest effect, for the
thought of being deprived of the power to hold office was a
severer punishment, in the eyes of some people, even than ten
years’ confinement in the penitentiary.
The further consideration of the bill was postponed, and the
Senate went into the consideration of executive business at four
o'clock, and remained until near five ; and then adjourned.
Mr. Preston, of South Carolina, on the 5th of April, said he
had no objection to the passage of a law against duelling, al-
though he believed that the common law, if properly enforced,
was abundantly sufficient. It might be that additional legisla-
tion was necessary to enforce it; but if so, it was worthy the
consideration of gentlemen who urged this measure, whether
the insufficiency of the common law was not induced by a state
of public opinion, (whether intelligent or not he would not stop
to inquire,) which was averse to the stern execution of the law
applicable to duelling. If this were so, the object which gentle-
men had in view would not be attained by the introduction of
other and sterner penalties. On the contrary, he (Mr. P.)
thought they made the law more inefficient when they made it
more severe, because it became more opposed to public sen-
timent. -
The practice of duelling, Mr. P. said, originated in, and was
sustained by, public opinion ; and so long as it was sustained, it
would prevail, in despite of law, on that principle which had
passed into a proverb, that when public opinion sets its face
against the measure, no law would be requisite. Gentlemen
who were advocating this measure seemed to think that laws
against duelling had, in many instances, been successful in Sup-
pressing it. In that he thought they were mistaken, at least to
the extent of the influence which they claimed for those laws.
It might have happened, in a particular case, that public opinion,
by some gross abuse of the practice, had been so raised against
it, that the enactment of new laws had strengthened and consol-
idated the feeling of the community, so as to bring the institution
of duelling into disrepute. Such was the case in Virginia; but
whether that State had succeeded in checking the passions
which gave rise to challenges, or had merely forced them,
into some more violent forms of ebullition, remained yet to be
368 APPENDIX.
seen. Duelling had undoubtedly produced much folly and much
misery, but at the same time it had mitigated the indulgence of
revengeful passions, which, taking the milder and more delib-
erate course, evaporated entirely, or assumed a less atrocious
form.
The day following, Mr. Linn, referring to the remarks of Mr.
Hubbard, of New Hampshire, said if the gentleman would show
him a case in any of the States where a man concerned in a
duel had been pronounced a murderer, or sent to the peniten-
tiary, then his remarks would apply. As he remarked the other
day, he wanted to see a law passed that would produce some
practical effects, not such a law that a jury could not be found
to carry it into execution. He had seen the effects of such laws
in his own State. There the punishment for fighting a duel,
where death ensued, was death, and yet men fought duels as if
no law existed at all. But they had now a law in his State
which was more effectual for the prevention of duelling than
any law that had ever been passed. In cases of assault, all
abusive words and defamatory language went to the jury in
mitigation of the offence —
Mr. Benton. — As a justification.
Mr. Linn. — Yes, sir, as a justification ; and if that abusive
member, the tongue, was permitted to have too free a license,
the same license was permitted to the injured individual to re-
dress his grievance. He thought, if the same law was applied to
the Senate of the United States, there would be a little more de-
corum than he had sometimes witnessed. This law, of which
he had spoken, had had a better effect in the prevention of duel-
ling than any that had ever been passed, and he thought it would
be better for the peace and harmony of society if such a law
was more generally prevalent throughout the United States.
Mr. Hubbard thought their legislation should be governed by
the wisdom and propriety of the measure, leaving the execution
of the laws to those who had them in charge.
Mr. Sevier, of Arkansas, the only Senator who voted against
the bill, on the same day, as officially reported, spoke in these
terms : — Although he was no friend to duelling, yet he dis-
liked this bill from one end of it to the other. He believed it
was a bill wholly for the protection of members of Congress,
who, not satisfied with the protection afforded them by the Con-
stitution, of exemption from arrest and from being sued for
words used in debate, wanted the additional protection of this
APPENDIX. 369
bill. A man is vilified and abused in one of the houses of
Congress, and he, of course, will expect the offender to give him
satisfaction in some way or other, and this bill says he shall not
have it. What, then, will be the consequence P Why, some-
thing like the affair of Houston and Stansberry ; the injured man
will take the law into his own hands, chastise the traducer, and
then he will be brought up to the bar of the House, from whence,
after five or six weeks are unprofitably consumed in the exami-
nation, he will be dismissed with a reprimand. This bill was
avowedly made to protect members of Congress, and to protect
them from what P Why, to protect them in abusing their mas-
ters, – the people who sent them here. It amounted to this,
and no more. Individuals coming to this city, or residing here,
may go out and fight, and be killed too, and nothing is said of
it; but let a member of Congress be killed in a duel, or be
whipped in the streets, or kicked out of a boarding-house, and
the business of the nation must be set aside to legislate on it. If
the object was solely to suppress duelling, and not for the pro-
tection of the members, why not pass a law to prevent it in our
other Territories as well as in the District of Columbia P Why
not include Wisconsin and Florida, and our forts and arsenals 2
He thought this District was already sufficiently disfranchised,
and he would not add any more to its disabilities. Members of
Congress might talk of Tom, Dick, or Harry as they pleased,
and could not be sued for slander ; and now they would take
away from the injured individual the only remedy left him. I
am opposed, continued Mr. S., to passing laws for our own pro-
tection, because if you pass one, the same reasons will operate
in passing another; and the next time Mr. Stansberry, or Mr.
any-body-else, is whipped by Houston, every member of Con-
gress must have a corporal’s guard to protect him in passing
from his boarding-house to the Capitol. Now he would ask if
the people of the United States would be willing to be taxed for
any such purpose, for it would take at least three thousand men
to furnish a corporal’s guard for each member, and they must
therefore have an additional army, or leave the frontiers ex-
posed. He was satisfied that more importance was attached to
this subject than it deserved, and he believed, out of one thou-
sand duels, nine.out of every ten of them were fought for causes
that could not be got over any other way. He knew that duels
were frequently fought for trivial causes, but he was convinced
that it was otherwise in a vast majority of cases. He held him-
370 * APPENDIX.
self responsible for everything he said on that floor, and he
would not give a vote to take away that responsibility. He did
not, by this, mean to say that he would fight everybody or no-
body ; that he would think of when the occasion required ; but
this he did say, that he was not going to shield himself by his
vote on this bill from the consequences that might be brought on
him by his own language. ſº
Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, in defending an amendment to the
bill which he introduced, and in reply to Mr. Sevier, said that he
could not agree with his friend from Arkansas, that this bill was
for the protection of members of Congress only. It had a much .
higher object in view, - that of suppressińg an odious and crim-
inal practice, and of securing the perfect independence of the
representatives of the people. His friend from Arkansas seemed
to be ambitious of martyrdom, and wanted to be shot at. Now,
he would have no objection to introducing an amendment to ex-
empt his friend from the operation of the bill, but he was anxious
that it should pass for the benefit of those who had no wish, like
him, to run against the muzzle of a gun.
The bill was read the third time on the 9th of April. Mr.
Clay was the last to address the Senate. His speech was brief
and comprehensive. He said that he had taken no part in the
discussion which had been going on in relation to this matter,
not, however, from any indisposition on his part to do all that he
could to aid in the very laudable objects contemplated by the
bill. No man would be happier than himself to see the whole
barbarous system for ever eradicated. It was well known that,
in certain quarters of this country, public opinion was averse to
duelling, and no man could fly in the face of that public opinion,
without having his reputation sacrificed ; while there were other
portions, again, which exacted obedience to the fatal custom.
The man with a high sense of honor, and nice sensibility, when
the question is whether he shall fight or have the finger of scorn
pointed at him, is unable to resist, and few, very few, are found
willing to adopt such an alternative. When public opinion was
renovated, and chastened by reason, religion, and humanity, the
practice of duelling would at once be discountenanced. It was
the office of legislation to do all it could to bring about this
healthful state of the public mind, and although it might not
altogether effect so desirable a result, yet he had no doubt it
would do much towards it, and with those views he would give
his vote for the bill.
APPENDIX. 371
Mr. Hubbard asked for the yeas and nays on the passage;
which were ordered, when there appeared for the bill thirty-four,
against it one, as follows: —
Yeas. – Messrs. Allen, Benton, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama,
Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Davis, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard,
Lumpkin, Lyon, McKean, Merrick, Mouton, Niles, Norvell,
Prentiss, Roane, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Smith of Connect-
icut, Smith of Indiana, Strange, Swift, Tipton, Trotter, Walker,
Wall, White, Williams, Wright, and Young. —34. -
Nays. – Mr. Sevier. — 1. .
No. XII.
JUDGE PIRTLE ON DUELLING.
[From the Louisville (Ky.) Journal, March, 1849.]
JUDGE PIRTLE, in his late valedictory address to the gradu-
ating law class in this city, made some excellent and forcible
remarks upon the important subject of duelling. He denounced
the practice in the strongest language, as rude and coarse, and
full of horrid crime. He defined the just office of a young man
who might be called as the friend of another on any occasion
of offended honor, and showed that oftentimes the blame of death
rests on the imprudent course of him who stands in the office of
a friend. He charged the young men to attend no man to the
field who would persist in the wrong, the wrong alone disgraced
a man. He denounced the mode of battle sometimes practised,
even in this age, with gun and pistol and knife, and the fight to
the death, as unchivalrous, barbarous, and savage, having noth-
ing but vengeance and murder in it, and unredeemed by a shade
of honor, – such as true knighthood would scorn.
No. XIII. -
DUELLING CUSTOMs.
CHAMBERs, in the Edinburgh Journal (1837), thus concludes
an article with the above title : —
“Although divines have preached, and moralists have railed, against
372 APPENDIX.
this bloody usage, it still prevails to a lesser or greater extent in every
country in Europe, and is almost daily producing the most fatal results
in America. There are evidently two reasons for its protracted exist-
ence. Public opinion is in an unhealthy state upon the subject; there
is too ready a disposition to sneer at the man who would refuse to peril
his life in a deadly conflict, no matter how unjustifiable the cause. The
law, also, is miserably defective in reference to duelling, — defective
either in the letter or in the mode of its execution. We venture to
redict, that if killing in a duel were visited with the usual capital pun-
ishment for murder, only in one instance, no more would be heard of
the practice of duelling. But neither the people at large who compose
the juries, nor the judicial executive, possess sufficient nerve to carry
so effectual a mode of reform into operation. We have known of many
murders committed in duels, but never heard of one instance of the
murderer, being carried to the gallows for his crime. In the midst of
this stupid apathy on an evil of so hideous a nature, it is gratifying to
find that more clear perceptions of the crime of killing in duel are be-
ginning to be entertained in France, where private fighting has always
been more general than elsewhere. In a trial of a person charged with
killing another in a duel, before the criminal court of Paris, Monsieur
Dupin, an eminent member of the legislature, maintained, in a speech
of great force and eloquence, that the practice was not only immoral
and Antichristian, but illegal, and that any one who slew another in a
duel was guilty of murder. The adoption of these views by the judges
of the court must necessarily be extremely beneficial in a country
where the laws have been understood rather to favor than to punish
these private assassinations. We should be glad to hear similar senti-
ments delivered in an English criminal court.”
No. XIV. - --.
THE SWORD-PLAYERS OF THE LAST CENTURY.
The 436th number of the Spectator contains an account of the
challenge of James Miller, “master of the noble science of
defence,” to Timothy Buck, who claimed to possess equal skill,
and to the combat which followed in the “Bear Garden, at
Hockley in the Hole”; and were there not ample evidence to
show that the scenes which Addison describes were frequent, we
should almost incline to believe, that, for some of his incidents,
he drew upon his imagination, so barbarous does the custom of
men hacking one another with swords, for the mere amusement
of themselves and others, appear to us. *
t
APPENDIX. 373
The article from Chambers, written in 1835, which follows,
will give the reader an idea of that diversion in the British Isles,
as well as disclose the fact that noblemen and foreign ministers
were voluntary and interested witnesses of it. The change
affords reason to hope that the barbarous practice to which this
volume is specially devoted may disappear also. While the
knowledge that “swordiplayers” were objects of admiration as
late as Addison's time should teach our English brethren charity
and moderation in their remarks about those who use bowie-
knives and shot-guns on the borders of American civilization.
“Those who are shocked by the descriptions of the gladiatorial scenes
exhibited on so large a scale, and with circumstances of such monstrous
barbarity, in ancient Rome, will be still more so when informed that
practices similar in kind, if less remarkable in degree, were common in
our own country till within the last hundred years. At the beginning
of the eighteenth century, a place of amusement called the Bear
Garden at Hockley in the Hole, in or near London, was devoted to
amusements of this description, which were not only resorted to by the
lower population, but by noblemen, and occasionally even by the resident
ambassadors. Men, styling themselves professors of the noble art of
defence, and occasionally assuming the title of champion for particular
English counties, were either stationary at that place of exhibition,
where they defied all competitors, or went about the country, challen-
ging particular towns to furnish them with an antagonist; a failure in
which could only be expiated by a purse of gold to purchase their de-
parture. The professors of this barbarous art were in many cases
Irishmen; and that there was at least one eminent proficient who
claimed Scotland for his place of birth is proved by a scarce old volume
in which is chronicled the life of Donald Bane, a man who had origi-
nally been a soldier, but afterwards gained a subsistence by teaching
the broadsword, and occasionally taking a purse by prize-fighting. On
the days when there was to be a fight at Hockley, they used to adver-
tise the circumstance, by parading the streets in fancy dresses, with
swords drawn, colors flying, drums beating, and a few officials whose
duty it was to disperse bills of the performance. The offensiveness of
these promenades is alluded to in terms of bitter reprobation in a pre-
sentment of the grand jury of London in June, 1701; but they were not
finally put down for full thirty years after that period.
“In 1725, one Figg entertained the public at an amphitheatre in the
Oxford Road, where, on one occasion, Sutton, the champion of Kent,
and a female of the same county, fought Stokes and his wife, for forty
pounds, to be given to the male or female who gave most cuts with the
sword, and twenty pounds for the most blows at quarter-staff, besides
the collection in the box. Two years later appeared the following
advertisement: “In Islington Road, on Monday, the 17th of July
3.
.
32 -
374 APPENDIX.
.1727, will be performed a trial of skill by the following combatants.
“We, Robert Barker and Mary Welsh, from Ireland, having often con-
taminated our swords with such antagonists as had the insolence to dis-"
pute our skill, do find ourselves once more necessitated to challenge, defy,
and invite Mr. Stokes and his bold Amazonian virago to meet us on the
stage, where we hope to give a satisfaction to the honorable lord of our
nation who has laid a wager of twenty guineas on our heads. They
that give the most cuts to have the whole money, and the benefit of the
house; and if swords, daggers, quarter-staff, fury, rage, and resolution
will prevail, our friends shall not meet with a disappointment.” “We,
James and Elizabeth Stokes, of the city of London, having already
given an universal approbation by our agility of body, dexterous hands,
and courageous hearts, need not perambulate on this occasion, but
rather choose to exercise the sword to their sorrow, and corroborate the
general opinion of the town, than to follow the custom of our repartee
antagonists. This will be the last time of Mrs. Stokes's performing on the
stage.” There will be a door on purpose for the reception of the gen-
tlemen, where coachés may drive up, and the company come in without
being crowded. Attendance will be given at three, and the combatants
mount at six precisely. They all fight in the same dresses as before.’
In October, 1730, Mr. Figg fought his two hundred and seventy-first
battle with a Mr. Holmes, whose wrist he cut to the bone. It does not
appear, however, that these horrible exhibitions were ever attended
with a mortal result: such an event would have probably put an end
to them. zº
“At a somewhat later period, an Irish sword-player, named O'Bryan,
who had beaten all the combatants at the Bear Garden, and various in-
dividuals in other parts of the kingdom, paid a visit to Edinburgh,
where, according to his custom, he challenged the inhabitants to pro-
duce an antagonist, under the usual penalty. That a breach of the
peace of this monstrous character was then tolerated, or such an exac-
tion submitted to, in a populous and not unenlightened city, may well
excite surprise; but if we only reflect on how much custom will recon-
cile us to, our wonder may in some measure cease. O’Bryan had been
in the city for some weeks, daily parading through its streets to pro-
claim his challenge, when the Duke of Hamilton, then residing in Holy-
rood House, sent for Donald Bane, the teacher of the broadsword
already mentioned, with the view of engaging him to take up the cause
of the citizens. When Bane arrived at the palace, the Duke of Argyle
happened to be present, and, as an old commander of the veteran
swordsman, entered heartily into the project. “Has he a drum ?” said
Bane. “Yes,’ answered Argyle, ‘and a very clever, stout fellow he
is, I assure you.’ ‘You may make yourself easy as to that,’ replied
Bane, “for I have broken his drum already.’ This was really the case;
for meeting O’Bryan at the foot of the West Bow, where he was, in no
very courteous terms, defying the whole of Scotland, the patriotic blood
of the Caledonian had become excited, and he drove his foot through
the one end of the drum and his fist through the other, as a first intima-

APPENDIX. 375
tion of his acceptance of the challenge. An agreement, indeed, had
already been made between O'Bryan and Bane to fight on that day
week. It was nevertheless thought necessary that a reply to the chal-
lenge should be published, in fair, set terms, and in Latin verse ; a fact
which strikingly proves the interest taken in these sanguinary proceed-
ings by persons of the better order.” Donald being now sixty-six
years of age, some fears were entertained by his friends for his success
in the encounter; and tradition represents his chief asking if he thought
he were ‘yawld enough’ for O’Bryan. On this the veteran pulled
out his claymore and made it whistle in the air over his head, a suffi-
ciently expressive test of his strength of arm. As he passed along the
street, some of the by-standers said, ‘Alī, Donald's failed; I doubt
he'll no do’; whereupon he leaped up to a lamp-iron far above the
reach of ordinary men, hung by one hand for a moment, and, springing
down, exclaimed, “She 'll do yet.' The stage was erected in St.
Anne's Yards, at the back of the cavalry green attached to the palace;
and the conflict, which lasted several hours, and was tried with a variety
of weapons, terminated in a declaration of victory in favor of the native
combatant, who, at the conclusion, found the boards covered with gold
and silver, thrown there for him by the admiring spectators.
“These facts must be allowed to denote a remarkable change of man-
ners in our island, for, though boxing is still occasionally practised, and
sometimes with more fatal effects, it is obvious that a more barbarous
and brutalized character is necessary to endure the sight of a fight with
edged weapons, than one in which the hands only are employed. A
lesson may be taken by persons in authority and by public writers from
the history of British gladiatorship. Such exhibitions, it is evident,
were regarded a century ago with much the same feelings which are
now experienced in reference to boxing. Morality stamped it as an
abominable vice, and such every authority and every public writer of
the least elevation of character must have esteemed it. But the exist-
ence of the practice tended to avert due reprobation from it, and was
the means of its prolongation. In the same way, boxing cannot now
be defended for a moment, when considered with a reference to mo-
* This answer was entitled, “Donaldi Bani famigerati ad Andreae O'Bryan
chartam provocatoriam Responsum,” and commenced as follows: —
“Ipse ego Donaldus Banus, forma albus et altus,
Non huic Andreae thrasoni occurrere decro,” &c.
It might be thus translated into English: “I, Donald Bane, fair-complexioned
and tall, shall not fail to enter the lists with this bully Andrew. With
Heaven's assistance, and as a friend to my country, I will go to meet him,
who, unskilled in the art, daringly challenges me to the combat. In a short
time, when we have entered upon the fight, brave men admitted to behold us
will perhaps see that the pugilist O'Bryan is, as I believe, not so expert a
master of the art of fencing. Whether he have a protection or a patron, my
weapon will render him an idle capon.” -
t Yauld, agile, with vigor.
376 APPENDIX.
rality. But, nevertheless, the existence of the practice is a kind of de-
fence to it, putting us upon suggesting all sorts of empty reasons for
tolerating it, — such as its tending to keep up a manly and martial spirit
in a commercial community, which we have heard seriously urged in its
favor. Were it once suppressed, we should wonder that it ever exist-
ed, as we wonder at the obsolete amusement of sword-playing, — so much
are we liable to be affected, in our judgment of an abuse, by the fact of
its being or not being. Could we, by any moral argument, more effec-
tually urge the propriety of utterly extinguishing the degrading sports
of the ring 2"
'No. XV. $.
THE DUELLIST.
[From Chambers's Edinburgh Journal, 1835.]
A FoREIGNER who has lately written a work upon England
mentions that Englishmen are cowards,- they do not fight duels,
but content themselves occasionally with boxing. The writer is
very ill acquainted with the people of this country who could
pen such nonsense as this. If duelling be not practised amongst
us, it is because Englishmen — we speak of the middle classes —
have more good sense than to resort to such idiotic and murder-
ous means of settling disputes. Besides, there is respect for the
law, not to speak of moral and religious obligation. The man
who either sends or accepts a challenges to fight with weapons
calculated to produce death, must in the eye of sober reason be
presumed to act from villanous or exceedingly foolish consider-
ations; although not less unworthy is the conduct which can lead
to so fatal a kind of strife. True courage has, in most respects,
nothing to do with fighting. Any ruffian can fight. The evil
passions are able to prompt men to face death from the worst of
motives. True courage is associated with a strong perception
of right and wrong, and will exert itself only in a good cause.
The man who risks his life to save that of another, or to rescue
his country from an imminent danger, exhibits this description
of courage in its best light. Fortunately, by the spread of intel-
ligence and the increased pewer of law and magisterial-author-
ity, the practice of duelling is wellnigh banished from Great
Britain, and has taken up its abode in those Continental countries
where common sense yet exerts but feeble influence, and where
APPENDIX. 377
the law does not consider the duellist as a murderer by Intent.
At Paris, duels have ever been common, the great arena for
such encounters being the Bois de Boulogne, a woody park beyond
the barriers on the west. Here many an unfortunate wretch has
fallen a victim to erroneous principles of honor. The following
relation of one of these brutal encounters, in which an English-
man of rank was engaged, is given in a novel recently published,
under the title of the “ Unfortunate Man.”
“Villeneuve, a most notable villain, was one day surprised by
young Talbot, whilst instilling his venom of deception into the ear
of his sister. The words which passed were few. Suspicions
and anonymous letters had already awakened the vigilance of
the brother, and had prepared him to wreak ample vengeance
on the shoulders of Willeneuve. The blow could not be excused ;
a meeting took place, and the usual barrier-duel was proposed.
To this the young Englishman most positively dissented. He
had heard that, day after day, and morning after morning, his
adversary was to be seen popping at fifty paces at little plaster-
of-Paris figures, about the size of a thimble, and that, thanks to
his patience, his practice, and his own pistols, the aim was un-
erring. The ‘Tir au Pistolet,” now a very general resort of all
young Frenchmen, in order to prepare them to commit murder,
was likewise the resort of Villeneuve. He was a proficient, —
a cool, dead shot ; cool from the knowledge of his own powers,
and that coolness always gives courage when challenged. He
smiled, as much as to say, ‘It is immaterial to me '; and the next
morning he was with his second at the appointed spot. “I will
not,” said young Talbot, “ consent to be shot like a chicken at a
stake. I know I have no chance that way of obtaining redress
for the injury my family have received. I know that my death
is certain, even at fifty paces, and I am resolved to have a chance
for my life ; so just tell that French officer that the only way I
will consent to fight is to have one pistol loaded and the other
not, to draw for first choice, and then to stand within a pace of
each other ; and may Heaven direct the choice of him whose
cause is the most just 1” It is strange, that even before battles
men pray to be assisted by a beneficent, benevolent Creator in
the work of destruction, as if the mingled hosts dealing out death,
and destruction, the rude charge of cavalry, or the shock of in-
fantry, could be pleasant to the eyes of Him who made us, who
gave us life, and has taught us how to live To return thanks
after the battle is another thing: we may safely return thanks
32 * :

378 APPENDIX.
that we have been spared to repent of our murders; but there is
something quite revolting to Christianity in the belief that the
Supreme Being mingles in the contest, or that the results can be
gratifying to an all-merciful God. Villeneuve did not make the
slightest objection to the proposition of Talbot's second, although
several of his own countrymen, who had come on the pleasant
excursion to witness the fight, strongly and vainly endeavored
to persuade their friend to leave his life to a better chance. The
preparation did not take long. The pistols, both being of course
exactly alike, were loaded by the seconds, and enveloped in a
large silk handkerchief. The first choice fell to the lot of Vil-
leneuve, who, placing his hand on the weapons, endeavored to
choose the heaviest ; but he who is to stand such a dreadful
hazard as the one proposed must be more than a man in courage,
if in such a moment he is cool enough to discriminate between
weights to which a single small bullet gives the preponderance.
He fixed upon the one he thought the heaviest, and the other
was given to Talbot. They took their respective grounds, and
so close that the muzzle of each man's pistol touched his adver-
sary. Talbot expressed himself as ready to die as to commit
the murder, but there was no alternative ; he himself had pro-
posed the mode of fighting, and the ungenerous precaution taken
by his adversary gave him a little more of the murderous inten-
tion than his otherwise truly English feeling could have per-
mitted. Men face some dreadful sights, but few have seen the
parallel to this ; neither is it to be thought of by my readers
as the mere effusion of an imaginary brain. The duel in
question actually took place, and if the names were changed,
every particular would be true. Dreadful must it have been for
the friends of each ; the certain knowledge that one must fall, -
the excitement, the agitation, the hope, the expectation, almost
placed the by-standers in as great an apprehension as the princi-
pals. When both were placed on the ground, the seconds of
each advanced, and took a last farewell. "Talbot shook his
friend's hand with an earnest trepidation ; he merely whispered
a few words, and, with a faint smile and fainter accent, said,
* Good by.” Willeneuve appeared as unconcerned as if he were
a casual spectator ; he spoke quick and rapidly; nodded to-one
or two of the company, more as a recognition than as a parting;
and had taken leave of his second before Talbot had ended his
low whisper. The words given were merely, “Are you ready ?”
then, “Fire l' Both pistols went off on the second, and both mea
APPENDIX. * - 379
fell. Willeneuve only turned upon his side, and almost instan-
taneously died. Talbot was lifted immediately; the closeness
of the pistol at the discharge had knocked him down, and his
face was a little injured by the powder; but his worst feeling
was that of disgust, when he saw his fallen enemy dead at his
feet. The whirl of the brain left him reasonless for some mo-
ments, and he fixed his excited eyes upon the corpse; he was
hurried from the spot in a dreadful state, and many months
elapsed before he was perfectly restored to health, or even rea-
son. There lay Villeneuve, the sworn foe to all Englishmen,
having met the fate of almost all professed duellists. He died
with a smile of contempt upon his countenance. One of his
companions threw his cloak over the corpse; many looked on
..in silence. There was not a word spoken ; the stillness of death
had extended itself to the spectators, who one by one retired
with cautious footsteps, as if fearing to awaken the slumbers of
him who had gone to his long account, and who had left behind
him a memory so tarnished that friendship would gladly forget
it, and had made the enmity he bore to our countrymen a kind
of entailed curse upon his survivors.”
No. XVI.
TRIFLEs To AMUSE, AND YET WITH A LESSON.
WESTON, of facetious memory, having borrowed on note the
sum of five pounds, and failing in payment, the gentleman who
had lent the money took occasion to talk of it in a public coffee-
house, which caused Weston to send him a challenge.
Being in the field, the gentleman, a little tender in point of
courage, offered him the note to make it up, to which our hero
readily consented, and had the note delivered.
“But now,” said the gentleman, “if we should return without
* fighting, our companions will laugh at us; therefore let us give
one another a slight scratch, and say we wounded each other.
fi “ with all my heart,” says Weston; “come, I’ll wound you
rSt.”
So, drawing his sword, he whipped it through the fleshy part
of his antagonist's arm, till he brought the very tears into his
eyes. :
380 APPENDIX.
This done, and the wound tied up with a handkerchief,
“Come,” said the gentleman, “where shall I wound you ?”
Weston, putting himself in a posture of defence, replied,
“Where you can, sir; where you can.”
Two young men, members of a political club at Bromberg,
fell into dispute upon the German question. One, an uncom-
promising German unionist, argued that, much as he loved his
native land (Prussia), he loved Germany infinitely more, and
unless German unity could be accomplished, Prussia would be
lost; and therefore he declared himself against all specific
Prussian-doms, and consequently against the Prussian cockade,
its symbol. The other, who is what is called a stock-Preussiere
(Prussian to the backbone), took fire at the last words, which he
regarded as an insult to the Prussian cockade and colors, and so,
in lieu of argument, he retorted by saying, “Sir, you are a piti-
ful fellow.” Whereupon the unionist, though sorely vexed at
seeing his argument thus uncivilly cut short, bowed calmly and
said, “I never reply to an insult by insults; you shall hear from
me.” After twenty-four hours' consideration, and in perfect
harmony with the maxims of universal peace, he sat down and
addressed the following letter to his antagonist: “Sir, your yes-
terday's insult demands satisfaction ; but as I am a married man
I do not choose to set my life on a chance. I therefore propose
that we shall fire with pistols at a mark, ins the presence of our
seconds, and whoever makes the best shot shall receive a one
hundred dollar share, bearing five per cent. interest, in the Wol-
untary Loan. By this means you can satisfy your patriotism
and my honor. Yours, &c.” The Prussian laughed in his
sleeve at this singular challenge, – more singular than the beer
duels of the university students, – and accepted it; little dis-
posed, however, to change his “pitiful” opinion of the chal-
lenger. Well, out they went, seconds and all, to the shooting-
ground, and, as it was declared that both were unpractised shots,
the chances were equal. So, after measuring distance and
loading pistols, with all the gravity of a murderous conflict, pop
went the challenger, and hit the bull's-eye, and bang went the
challenged, and missed the target; whereupon the seconds inter-
fered, and condemned the loser to book up. And there the affair
ended, to the universal merriment of the usually pugnacious
town of Bromberg.
APPENDIX. 381
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1853.
A couple of young men, in the lower part of , had a
diſficulty about a young lady, in the course of which a banter
was given for a fight. It was at length agreed that it should be
a duel, and the weapons pistols. Seconds were chosen, and the
preliminaries agreed on. To keep the courage of the principals
from taking the direction of Bob Acres's, and oozing out of their
finger-ends, they were privately informed that the pistols would
be loaded only with powder. One evening in the latter part of
last week the parties proceeded to the Plank Road, the ground
was measured, and a pair of villanous-looking horse-pistols pre-
sented to the combatants, and the word given. At the discharge,
one of the parties, dexterously smearing his face with some red
Fiquid and uttering a groan, fell heavily to the ground. His op-
ponent, astounded at the result, was coolly informed by his
second that his pistol was loaded right. Dropping his pistol, he
rushed forward, imploring the wounded man to speak, but was
answered only by groans, as if in great pain. Convinced that
he had dangerously, if not fatally, wounded his antagonist, he
started full run to make his escape, and next morning about day-
light reached his brother's, about ten miles from
Here the whole family, including his mother, were startled by
the revelation, and the brother with all speed came to 2
and, taking up some funds, several hundred dollars, his mother
had in a bank, to employ counsel, &c. on behalf of his brother,
Came On to to ascertain the state of the wounded man,
and found that his brother was the victim of a hoax.
GALIGNANI tells us that a singular duel took place recently in
the Bois de Boulogne. Two coachmen who had long felt ill-
blood for each other, and had never met without squabbling,
stood again in the presence of each other, when one of them
said, “Our quarrelling has now lasted too long; it is time to put
an end to it. Let us have one fight, and let that be the last.
We neither of us understand anything of sword or pistol; let us
fight with our whips l’” and they set to accordingly. *
DUELLING ON THE AUSTRIAN FRONTIER.
ON the borders of Austria and Turkey, where a private pique
or quarrel of an individual might occasion the massacre of a
382 APPENDIX.
family or village, the desolation of a province, and perhaps even
the more extended horrors of a national war, whensoever any
serious dispute arises between two subjects of the different
empires, to terminate it recourse is had to what is called “the
custom of the frontier.” A spacious plain or field is selected;
whither, on an appointed day, judges of the respective nations
repair, accompanied by all those whom curiosity or interest may
assemble. The combatants are not restricted in the choice or
number of their arms, or in their method of fighting, but each is
at liberty to employ whatsoever he conceives is most advan-
tageous to himself, and avail himself of every artifice to insure
his own safety and destroy the life of his antagonist. One of the
last times that this method of deciding a quarrel on the frontiers
was resorted to, the circumstances were sufficiently curious. The
phlegmatic German, armed with the most desperate weapon in
the world, – a rifle pistol, mounted on a carabine stock,-- placed
himself in the middle of the field; and, conscious that he would
infallibly destroy his enemy if he could once get him within
shot, began coolly to smoke his pipe. The Turk, on the con-
trary, with a pistol on one side and a pistol on the other, and two
more in his holsters, and two more in his breast, and a carabine
at his back, and a sabre by his side, and a dagger in his belt,
advanced like a moving magazine, and, galloping round his ad-
versary, kept incessantly firing at him. The German, conscious
that little or no danger was to be apprehended from such a
marksman with such weapons, deliberately continued to smoke
his pipe. The Turk at length perceiving a sort of little explo-
sion, as if his antagonist's pistol had missed fire, advanced like
lightning to cut him down, and almost immediately was shot
dead. The wily German had put some gunpowder into his
pipe, the light of which his enemy mistook, as the other had
foreseen would be the case, for ‘a flash in the pan ; and, no
longer fearing the superior skill and superior arms of his adver-
sary, fell a victim to them both when seconded by artifice. —
Flowers of Anecdote. '. --
DUEL OF TWO GASCONS.
Two Gascons having a quarrel, a challenge passed between
them. When they were come to the ground, one of them said
to the other, who was in a posture to commence the combat,
“Ah, my friend, how you charm me ! I shall regret exces-
APPENDIX. 383
sively to kill so fine a fellow as you. Ask your life, and I will
grant it to you.” The other said that he was not come to that
pass yet, but was prepared to defend himself. The first speaker
repeated his kind offer: “Ah, my good fellow, do ask your
life ; I will willingly give it you.” But the other, who saw
through his fanfaronade, called upon him instantly to stand to his
defence, that the fight might be commenced. “Ah!” said the
first, “I do admire the fine appearance you make in your pos-
ture : you are a perfect Caesar. Why should such a fine fellow
be caused to bite the dust 2 Will you really not ask your life P’’
“No, no,” thundered out the other; “defend yourself, or I will
kill you.” “You ravish me!” cried the man of mercy. “But
if you are determined not to ask your life of me, why, I ask
mine of you ! ” -
HOW A DUEL MAY BE GOT UP.
THIS affair of the duel is worth recording. It happened thus:
—“That was a very beautiful ostrich-plume which Miss Smith
wore at the race ball last night,” said I. “I thought it the
ugliest thing I ever saw,” remarked Captain Brown. “It cer-
tainly was not ugly,” I replied ; “but, of course, there may be
different opinions as to its beauty. I, for instance, thought it
very beautiful.” “And I thought it very ugly,” responded Cap-
tain Brown; “as ugly as Miss Smith herself.” “Miss Smith is
not exactly handsome, I allow,” was my answer; “but a lady
may not be handsome, and yet not ugly.” “Every one to his
taste,” said Captain Brown, with what I considered an insulting
air; and then added, “Every Jack has his Gill l’” “Miss Smith
is no Gill of mine,” I replied. “I did not say she was,” said
Captain Brown, and laughed. “And I am no Jack,” I continued,
nettled by his laugh. “I did not say you were,” said Captain
Brown, fiercely ; “but if you want to make a quarrel of it, you
may. I say again, and I have as much right to say what I say,
as you have to say what you say, that Miss Smith's ostrich-plume
was ugly, as ugly as Miss Smith herself.” “Since you put it thus
offensively, Captain Brown,” I retorted, “I now maintain there
was nothing ugly, no, not anything ugly at all, either in Miss
Smith's feathers or Miss Smith herself. I’ll not be browbeaten by
any man, Captain Brown l’’ “Sir, you are insolent l” exclaimed
**
384 APPENDIX.
Captain Brown, looking as scarlet as his own jacket. “Very
likely ; but I always make it a rule to conduct myself towards
persons as they deserve,” and I turned upon my heel to quit the
room. Captain Brown followed me to the door. “You shall
hear from me in an hour,” said he. “In half an hour, if you
like,” said I, and walked away, boiling with indignation.
Before I heard from Captain Brown, I was as cool as a cucum-
ber. I saw all the folly of my situation. I had never spoken to
Miss Smith in my life. What was it to me, then, whether her
ostrich-plume was beautiful or ugly, or she herself handsome or
a fright? I resolved to treat the matter with ridicule. It would
be preposterous to go out for such a cause. We should be the
laughing-stock of all our friends and acquaintance. These were
my first thoughts, when my mind was calm enough for thought
to take the place of feeling. Besides, I might be shot through
the body; and all for what ? — a silly dispute about Miss Smith
and her feathers I did not like the idea. I determined I would
not make an affair of honor of it. But what would the world
say, if Captain Brown posted me as a coward, or horsewhipped
me, or if I were pointed at as a man who had sneaked out of a
duel by a voluntary apology 2 These were my second thoughts.
They carried the day, after a sharp struggle with my first. I
determined I would make an affair of honor of it. I did so. I
met Captain Brown the next morning at sunrise, and I sacrificed
one of my fingers, besides the risk of sacrificing my life, in de-
fence of Miss Smith's personal charms and the disputed pulchri-
tude of her ostrich-plume. — New Monthly Magazine.
No. XVII.
DUELLING : A TALE OF WOE.
z | [From Bentley's Miscellany.]
THERE is a trait in Irish character which I have always con-
ceived to be naturally chivalrous, and that is a general dislike to
seek in courts of law a momentary compensation for honor out-
raged through woman's folly. In England, reparation for loss of
services is considered a thing as correctly reclaimable as loss of
profit on a broken contract for a cargo of seal-oil or guano; while
APPENDIX. * 385
in the sister kingdom, in nine cases out of ten, the man who
works upon the weakness of a wife, or trifles with the affections
of a sister, is not subjected to the assessment on amounts of in-
jury by the computation of a jury, but summoned to give per-
sonal satisfaction in the field. Many a fatal case, recorded in the
annals of Irish duelling, will tell how frequently profligate suc-
cess has paid, in turn, a bloody penalty.
In caricaturing Milesian manners and feelings, it has been
asserted that you could not look at a Cork-lady at a supper-
table but she graciously murmured, “Port, if you please !” or
dance a second time with a man's sister, that he was not certain
to drop in next morning, before you dressed, to inquire whether
your intentions to the young lady were matrimonial. That a
number of unhappy marriages have been effected by pistol in-
tervention, is too true ; and I recollect one sad case where the
love was on the lady's side, and a fine-spirited and honorable
young fellow, with all before him that could promise happiness,
was suddenly removed from existence ere the third week closed
that followed as bright a union as could be fancied.
R was remarkably handsome, and those personal advan-
tages were enhanced by the total unconsciousness that he pos-
sessed them. A young lady saw, loved ; and remembering what
Viola's friends suffered from concealment, she saved the damask
of her cheek, and intimated to the gentleman the state of her af.
fections. In reply, poor R candidly confided his situation
to the lady. He had wooed and won the only woman he loved,
and the next Monday would bless him with her hand.
Harriette M was handsome, self-willed, rich, and proud
as Lucifer. R. in fortune was her equal, but in birth a
caste below. The circumstance, however, that embittered her
rejection — and if rejection be humiliating to a man, how fear-
fully must it agonize the woman who, perverting conventional
usages, sues when she should be sought, supplicates what she
should conceal, and is rejected 2
“Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
Nor hell a fury like a woman spurned.”
And for whom had her hand and fortune been declined P. The
daughter of a village curate; rich in nothing but youth, and in-
nocence, and beauty. - .
The Devil never prompts a delinquency, that he does not man-
age to supply a tool. George Pemberton was Harriette's kinsman,
33
386 APPENDIX.
a Lieutenant in the –th, wretchedly poor, and his regiment an ex-
pensive one. His manners were assuming ; and, with an empty
purse, how many slights will an ill-tempered individual experi-
ence, should he have the misfortune of being gazetted to a crack
corps ? George Pemberton was returning, on leave between
returns, to raise a small sum of money ; or, failing, to sell out ;
and he found his cousin Harriette all alone, five minuets after
the Chronicle had been received, detailing, in glowing lan-
guage, the beauty of the bride, as being in perfect keeping with
that of the handsomest man who, for years, had sworn conjugal
allegiance at the altar. “The happy couple,” the paper added,
“had gone to to spend the honeymoon.”
In such frames of mind, and under such circumstances, the
cousins met. Pemberton, in right of his relationship, would
have saluted his fair kinswoman; but she drew her face away,
and, looking contemptuously at his short and shapeless person,
coolly observed, - -
“Palm to palm must do, George ; for, i' faith ! you are too
ugly even for a cousin to kiss 1” - *
“As handsome and as insolent as ever! Why, Harriette, I ex-
pected to have seen a willow wreath and pallid cheek. You
bear your throw-over patiently.”
The lady's brows contracted, and she haughtily waved her
hand.
“Enough ! no more of this. I know your business here.
You want two hundred pounds, and my father will not advance
as many pence, were it to save your neck, and not your com-
mission.”
“Then I must send in my papers, and leave the –th.”
“ Unless some fool is found who will lend money to a gentle-
man, who, on six shillings a day, keeps a pair of hunters!”
observed the lady. - 2
Pemberton looked sulky and displeased. -
“Nay, George, on my conscience, thou art ill-favored enough,
without knitting those beetle brows together. I have the money.
Would you earn it * * ze
“I would go to the Devil,” was the reply, “rather than quit
the –th from sheer poverty. What shall I do?” -
-*
She turned her dark and lightning eyes on his, and, after a .
pause of half a minute, pointed with her finger to the paragraph
which announced the hated marriage. Then, dropping her
voice to an emphatic whisper, she laid her lips close to her kins-
man's ear: —
APPENDIX. * - 387
“Read | Spoil me that honeymoon, — the money's thine !”
And without waiting a reply, she hurried to her own apart-
ment. *
Never did the arch-enemy of man select a better agent than
George Pemberton. To a currish temper, he united a sufficiency
of animal courage to make him dangerous ; and secret influen-
ces, with which his revengeful kinswoman was totally unac-
quainted, fitted him for the task. He knew that his retirement
from a regiment, officered by men of property, and to whom he
had made himself obnoxious by the idle attempt of veiling pov-
erty ". insolence, would be felt a triumph. But deadlier
feelings foward the husband of Lucy Meadows urged him on to
vengeance. He had secretly but passionately loved her; and
she had neither tact nor prudence to conceal a personal dislike,
amounting to aversion. Keeping in the background the real
causes which induced him to attempt the life of one against
whom he could plead no injury, an alleged slight to his fair
cousin would form “a very pretty quarrel”; and with a conge-
nial spirit as demoniac as his own, he set off, without delay, to the
retired watering-place, where the handsomest and happiest pair
that Connaught could produce were, in their own belief, enter-
ing on an elysian existence. -
The barbarous punctilio of the times — provided a man could
boast gentle lineage — almost prohibited a refusal to his call for
satisfaction, no matter how flimsy the pretext might be under
which he demanded a hostile meeting, and Pemberton availed
himself of it. -
It was evening. R. had been engaged in answering con-
gratulatory letters, and had proceeded with his billets to the
post. Lucy watched him from the inn-window, and thought her
husband never looked so handsome as when, in turning the
corner, he smiled and kissed his hand. She gazed at the sun,
sinking gloriously in the far west, and in the flood of gold hid-
ing his broad disc in the boundless waters of the Atlantic.
Alas! she little dreamed, poor girl, that *
“The moon that rose
And promised rapture in the close,”
was fated to usher in a night on whose deep, deep darkness a
ray of hope should never break again.
Pemberton and his companion waylaid their intended victim ;
but R. felt himself too blessed with Lucy to risk aught that
388 APPENDIX.
could interrupt his happiness. Against the imputed offence he
temperately remonstrated, and repudiated all intention of wound-
ing the feelings of the lady, whose imaginary wrongs were
made the basis to rest a quarrel on. A meeting he declined ;
at least until he could send for and consult a friend. From inso-
lence, Pemberton proceeded to verbal, and at last to personal
insult. R–’s was a brave and manly spirit. Good Heaven l
to feel the ruffian’s whip upon his shoulders and not resent the
outrage His temper yielded ; he longed to wipe disgrace
away in blood. He urged delay no longer; demanded instant
satisfaction ; hurried into the inn-garden, and, within ten min-
utes from the time he waved a passing — little did he Fancy it a
last — adieu, R. was stretched, in death, upon the bowling-
green
What Lucy suffered may be readily conceived. Human
misery could not go farther : in one sheer plunge, to reach,
from the very pinnacle of mortal happiness, the darkest abyss of
despair. The imagination must fill out what fancy cannot
pencil. *
And how did she feel, -she, that guilty woman, when
“The ruin that her rashness wrought"
was told her ?
Before her emissary had accomplished half his journey, Har-
riette’s better feelings had regained ascendency, and, when too
late, she would have given thousands to have recalled her hire-
ling kinsman. In charity, we will hope that her wounded pride
sought vengeance short of destruction. Indeed, the effect of the
sad intelligence, when it arrived, would go far to prove that such
was the case. She was convulsed, fevered, delirious for two
months after, and recovered strength only by the loss of reason ;
and in a few years after closed her wretched existence in an
asylum. r
I often called to memory the truth of Father Malachi's duel-
ling deductions; for the finale to the careers of Messieurs An-
drews and Pemberton proved them correct to the letter. Both
died violent, but inglorious deaths. * -
Frank Andrews, some half-dozen years after he had placed
the house of Sheivé-nagarrew in mourning, repaired to the me-
tropolis on business. The evening he arrived in Dublin he con-
trived to fasten a quarrel on a linen-draper, whose sister he had
insulted at the theatre, and hurried the devoted tradesman by the
APPENDIX. - 389
first dawn of day to “the twelve acres.” “ The hour of retri.
bution had come, – for a man whose hand never clasped before
a deadlier implement than a cloth-yard contrived to pop, par ac-
cident, a quarter of an ounce of lead into the pericardium of Mr.
Francis Andrews. b
Well, though he fell in the lap of honor, still, the artiste who
sped him was a linen-draper; that was certainly a sad drawback;
but, if Mr. Andrews's evit was not the thing, Mr. Pemberton's
was even less distingué. - t
Never had homicide, by permission of Irish gentlemen, prom-
ised more satisfactory results to its perpetrator. The transmission
of Harriette and her father — the former to a madhouse, and
the latter to a grave — occured within the month, and, as heir-
at-law, Mr. George Pemberton succeeded to the management of
the estates and custody of the lunatic. Mr. Pemberton deter-
mined that during his life his fair cousin should continue in seclu-
sion, and fate gave a kind consent.
It was a gray autumnal evening, when Pemberton, who had
taken formal possession of his uncle's house, was carrying two
strangers home to supper, whose acquaintence he had made
that morning at the fair of town. It may be here neces-
sary to remark, that R had a natural brother, to whom he
had been generous and kind, and who had been often over-
heard vowing eternal vengeance on the destroyer of his kinsman.
He took his mother's name, – was called William Halligan, but,
by the country people, was better known by the sobriquet of
Liaume Waddagh. f Eight months had elapsed since R WaS
killed by Pemberton, and people began to say that “George was
safely seated in his saddle.” To this opinion others dissented.
Liaume Waddagh, before his kinsman's death, had been held
in light estimation. He drank freely, headed faction fights, and,
more than once, had been hinted at in chapel as a gay deceiver.
But a marvellous change since his brother's death had come over
his wild youth; — whiskey never passed his lips, – no inducement
at fair or market could rank him in a faction fight; — his youth-
ful compeers declared he was bewitched, but older men shook
their heads, and hinted that the young Liaume Waddagh, under
a quiet exterior, was “fuller of mischief than a loaded blunder-
buss.” The old folks were right, for “Long William ” only
bode his time, like the red Kirkpatrick, to “strike sicker.”
* A division of the Phoenix Park, where duels have been fought by the hundred.
f Anglice, Long William. 33 #
390 APPENDIX.
Pemberton, although several monitory hints were given him,
remained in false security; and yet there were times that the
altered habits of this wild young man, when coupled with his
omnipresence in fair or market, or wherever else the place he
frequented might be, went some length in creating suspicion
in the mind of Pemberton. At the fair, on this day, he encoun-
tered “Long William ” more than once, and so did others, who
noticed to each other a change equally remarkable in his habits
and appearance. Liaume Waddagh had hitherto worn the deep-
est mourning, and avoided spirits as he would poison. On this
day his sables were discarded, and he was gayly dressed; while,
with his “inky” garments, his unsocial habits appeared to have
departed. He drank deep to his brother’s memory, mention-
ing that this was the birthday of the deceased.
One other circumstance requires a passing notice. Lucy had
frequently requested that “Long William ” would come to see
her, aware how strong the attachment was which had existed
between her murdered husband and his wild half-brother. To
every invitation the same answer was gratefully returned, - “He
would dutifully wait upon her when his vow should be accom-
plished.” What the vow was, none knew.
When evening came, and Mr. Pemberton had ordered his
horse to the inn-door, Liaume Waddagh was seen, wrapped in
his catamore, riding briskly from the market-town. The distance
to reach the principal entrance to the park would require a dé-
tour of at least two miles, while a back gate opened upon the
road that William took. There was no lodge, but Liaume Vad-
dagh was seen to gain admission by a key, and carefully lock
the gate afterward. The scene that followed was thus described
by one of the strangers. -
On reaching the back entrance of the park, Mr. Pemberton
unlocked the gate, and when he had again secured it, he turned
to his guests, and bade them a courteous welcome.
“This is the first time I have had the honor, gentlemen, to
receive you at Mount Hazel. May I hope it will not be the
last P” The strangers bowed ; while a voice that seemed an
echo, repeated in hollow and distinct tones, “The last !” A gun
exploded, – Mr. Pemberton staggered and fell, - the strangers'
horses went off at speed, – one rider managed to keep his
saddle, while the other was roughly dismounted. The fallen
horseman rolled into the ditch, and there, in mortal agony, he
viewed the denouement of the tragedy. * .
* ~
*** -
APPENDIX. 391
A tall man, wrapped in a frieze great-coat, stepped leisurely
from the back of the hedge, and quietly approached the body.
He looked for a moment at the glassy eye and bloodless lips.
“One barrel did the business l’’ he muttered, and laid the gun in
a slanting direction across the corpse. . Then, taking a written
paper from his pocket, he affixed it to the dead man’s breast.
All was methodically done ; a pin secured every corner of the
placard, and these pins were placed carefully in the cuff of the
murderer's catamore. That done, he coolly reloaded the dis-
charged barrel. The stranger remarked that the gun had been
prepared for concealment and assassination, for the barrels had
been shortened by a foot. The murderer gazed on the dead
body for a minute, but his hand never approached the pockets
of his victim, except when he drew a gold watch from the fob,
muttered it was “half-past seven,” and cautiously returned the
time-piece. The murder being done to his satisfaction, he led a
horse into the avenue, unlocked and refastened the gate, and rode
off leisurely. Half dead with fear, the stranger listened to the
retiring horse-tramps, and crept cautiously from the ditch. He
shuddered as he looked at the body, for, on the breast of the
dead man, a paper, written in bold characters, bore the single
sentence of “BlooD FoE BLooD !” ---
Lucy R , in widow’s weeds, was sitting in her drawing-
room ; the gloom of twilight accorded with her “soul's sad-
ness”; for the period was approaching, when a being, orphaned
long before it saw the light, was to claim a mother's care. Her
past was frightful to recall, her future fearful to look forward to.
What should she be were her hour of trial safely over ? A
widowed mother at twenty Wrapped in sombre meditation,
she did not hear the opening door, until, moving across the light,
a tall figure arrested her attention, when standing within two
ards. . f
y “Who are you ?” demanded the startled mourner.
“William Halligan, lady, come to bid you an eternal farewell!”.'
A deep, low voice responded, -
“Brother of him in whom every feeling of this young heart
was centred, and ever will be, I give you a widow's welcome. —
Sit down, William.” --
“Lady, I dare not, for time is precious.”
“How often have I sent for you, William l’” J
“And think you, lady, that a whisper from you would not
have brought me here at midnight 2 Bound, however, by a
sºme
392 APPENDIX.
secret vow, I dared not see you until I came to-night to say
farewell.” - -
“Where are you going, William * *
“That Heaven and accident only can decide. The money
which he whom we both lament bequeathed me was, months
ago, transmitted to America, and there I sail to claim it.”
“I need protection, William. That hardened wretch — he
who robbed me of my husband — rode past my window yester-
dav.”
X. He will never repeat the offence,” returned Long William,
calmly. “But time hurries forward, and upon a few minutes,
with me, life and death may depend. Should the promised in-
fant be a boy, give him this, as a dear memento,” — and he took a
gun from beneath his great-coat, and laid it on the table. “Tell
him that a cross is filed deeply in the barrel that sped — ”
“Whom, - in the name of Heaven P’’ exclaimed the lady,
in alarm. -
“The slayer of his father And now, farewell for ever
He fell upon his knees, caught the lady's hand in his, and
covered it with kisses. A low, shrill whistle was heard beneath
the window. -
“It is the signal. May Heaven bless and comfort you !
Lady, farewell, for ever !” ---
Before the words were heard distinctly, he vanished as he
entered. All knew that the homicide of George Pemberton was .
Liaume Waddagh, and, in a wild community, .
1 *
“With whom revenge is virtue,”
his memory is still handed down as one who did “the state
some service.” He sought the backwoods of the Illinois, led a
hunter's life, and died in an Indian wigwam. -
It is only necessary to add, that the family of the unscrupu-
lous duellist have been extinct for several years, while the de-
scendant of the victimized bridegroom is prosperous in worldly
circumstances.
The circumstances under which I witnessed this fatal en-
counter were purely accidental. I had been stopping at the same
inn where poor R was passing his honeymoon, and had
often admired a couple, whom Nature, it would seem, had created
for each other. The evening when the wicked deed took place,
— for Pemberton's friend gave the false signal, and R WaS
shot before he raised his pistol, - I was in my bed-room, making
APPENDIX. 393
a trifling change in my toilet, preparatory to an excursion along
the cliffs, when, without the customary knock upon the door, in
rushed the chambermaid, –
“Sir sir!” she exclaimed in a voice of wild alarm ; “run
down stairs, for God’s sake 1 They 're going to shoot the hand-
some gentleman l’”
Before I could ask a question, or comprehend what the fright-
ened girl meant, pop went a pistol in the garden. I jumped to
the window, - it overlooked the bowling-green, – and there,
upheld by the gardener and a boy, I saw a gentlemen in the
agonies of death. Half undressed, I hurried down stairs, and
saw the two men mount their horses and ride coolly from the
yard, and on reaching the scene of action found that with poor
R suffering was at an end and life was extinct.
Thirty years after the said event, I was marching a wing of
the –d through Johnstown, where we were to halt for the
night, when I received a visit from the squire, to invite me to
dinner, and offer me a bed. Both were willingly accepted ; for
the village hostelrie was ill-kept and sadly overcrowded. On in-
quiry, I found that the gentleman to whose hospitality I was
about to be indebted was the son of poor R , whom I had
seen shot at East Port; and, as the reminiscence might be un-
pleasant, I kept it to myself. I was most kindly entertained, and
after supper—in those days a favorite meal in Ireland — was
conducted by a gray-haired attendant to my sleeping-chamber.
“Have you been long in the family P’” I inquired.
“I have lived in Johnstown under three generations.”
“Then you remember some family changes in your time,
John P.'"
“Ah, many,” said the old man; “some for the better, and
others for the worse.” -
“You lived with the father of Mr. R. * *
“I lived with the best master and the handsomest man that
ever fell in a wicked duel.”
“I saw him shot.” -
The old man started, crossed himself devoutly, and poured
out a supplication for mercy to the departed. “May I ask your
name, sir?” -
I told it. r
“I remember it well. You were the young officer who held
the poor master in your arms, when you sent the gardener and
his boy to fetch the doctors.”
394 APPENDIX.
“I am that person, and would have acted as your master's
second, could I have reached the bowling-green in time. But
they made short work of it.” -
“Ah, they did, indeed,” said the old man, “but the vengeance
of the Almighty has pursued them hard.”
“Did he who killed your master come to an untimely end ?”
I demanded. -
“Come into the next room, and I will tell you, sir.”
He lifted the candles from the table, and led me into an ad-
joining apartment. It seemed a sort of private room or study.
There were a couple of book-cases, whose shelves were tolerably
filled, a collection of stuffed birds, and a glass press above the
mantel-piece, to which, when he had placed the lights on the
marble slab, he selected and applied a key, and from two pegs
within lifted down an antiquated weapon. I took the gun and
examined it carefully. In its day it was, no doubt, held in high
estimation. The pans and touch-holes were bushed with gold,
and the mountings of the stock were elaborately finished, the
finishings being silver. But the barrels were shortened by a
foot.
“Why, John, these barrels have been razeed. How short they
are l’” .
“They were found long enough to do the work of ven-
geance 1 ° returned the old man, dryly. “See ye, sir, this
cross P 7° ;’ .
“Yes; the file has deeply indented it.”
“Through that barrel a summons to eternity was carried to a
ruthless heart. May God be gracious to your soul, Liaume Vad-
dagh 1 You took your time to do your work, and did it well.”
The old man replaced the weapon on its pegs, locked the
glass case, conducted me to my room, bade me “Good night,”
and left me to sleep, — perchance to dream. *
*. (
THE END.
- — — —---—“ --- . . .
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
GRADUATE LIBRARY
JL 24200
S
iči 5 20m
JUL 27 2001
Form 9584



UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ºr -->
| º
-
- - -
- | | | | | | | | nº
|