“ 
1829.] f 401 J 
NOTES OF THE MONTH ON AFFAIRS IN GENERAL. 
Tue Duke of Wellington’s duel has luckily passed over without 
‘bloodshed. But the example is mischievous, as much as the event was 
without excuse or necessity. Lord Winchelsea, in the letter withdraw- 
ing his subscription from the King’s College, had charged the Duke of 
Wellington with using his zeal on that occasion as a cloak to deeper 
designs. The charge was of a public nature, on public grounds, and 
publickly brought forward. There were two ways of acting left open 
to the individual so charged. One was to deny the charge, prove that 
it was erroneous, and thus stand acquitted before the country. The 
other was, to say no more about it, quietly acquiesce in what the charged 
must allow to be true, and leave the wiping it away to the work of 
oblivion, of a majority, or of that factious clamour, which is always ready 
to follow the powerful. But the Duke of Wellington, not content 
with either, made for himself a third way, altogether unjustifiable, and 
tending in no degree to clear up the charge. This way was a challenge: 
which, translated into plain language, runs thus: “My Lord Winchelsea, 
you have accused me of an act of low hypocrisy in perverting the objects 
of religion and loyalty into the reverse. To this I make no defence, but 
I shall insist on your standing to be shot at, unless you retract the 
charge, whether you believe it to be true or false.” In other words, “ you 
must concede to personal fear, what the truth might not demand from 
you.” Accordingly Lord Winchelsea would not thus concede to fear ; 
and-he went out to be shot at, and was shot at by the duke, Lord Win- 
chelsea being the mere target for his grace’s ball, and not firing, nor 
intending to fire. Thus, the affair, at this moment, stands in exactly 
the same position as before the meeting: the charge resting on the same 
ounds ; being as fully believed as ever, and even more fully believed, 
‘om this military mode of silencing the charge and the charger together. 
Of course Lord Winchelsea’s note on the field goes for nothing beyond 
the common ceremonial of a pistol affair. But whether his lordship be 
or be not converted to a belief of the duke’s-innocence by his readiness 
in sending challenges, nobody else is: and so far, the stigma is left just 
where it was. 
As tothe offence of the duel itself, it must be reckoned among the 
most offensive insults of the time to common sense and public morals. 
The only ground that any reasoner offers for duelling is, its saving a 
man from the imputation of pusillanimity. No one attempts to justify it 
as revenge, or defence against an accusation of immorality, political 
treachery, or personal hypocrisy. In the case of revenge, the duellist 
who kills is a deliberate murderer; and in the others, he attempts to 
screen himself by terrifying his accuser, or taking away his life. It is’ 
-anutter abuse of words, to say that it is due to his honour to fire at his 
accuser. His honour can be defended only by fairly rebutting the accu- 
sation. But had the Duke of Wellington any necessity to vindicate his 
character for personal fearlessness ? No man less. He has, then, left only 
the alternative of revenge ; or of a determination to screen himself from 
all charges, by holding out the evidence that he is ready to meet the 
accuser, if not in the fair tribunal of parliament, or of law, in the field ; 
and decide the point of guilt or innocence by that high judicial authority, 
the trigger. 
But what is this duel, when we look upon its effects in the light of exam- 
M.M. New Serics—Vou.VII. No. 40. 3 F 
