150 



DUEL 



Dvfc 



TUpriraM 

 dudguni 



f^u: ,'.. 



Attempt* 

 nudi to 

 nippttwic. 



J.aw in 

 England re- 

 specting it. 



ID totted, 



duelling in- 

 liently 

 made a put 

 of the legal 

 jumpru- 

 tlrnce. 



b; law. 



'Hie law 

 now in 

 force a- 

 gainttduel- 



tire champions. And thus ended this mock judicial 

 combat, which was the hint of the kind that e\-r took 

 place in this countn |>ehnan. '"' I'nc. Camjius. 



But while the public combat was discom-tenanced, 

 and grew into disuse, the private duel U-camc more 

 frequent ; because there lx-ing no legal redre-s, in the 

 case of personal iillronts. every one thought himself en- 

 titled to act as judge in his own cause. S> that, in the 

 reign of Elizabeth and James 1. this species of battle 

 had increased to a very great extent. This appears 

 from a speech of Sir Francis Bacon against duelling, 

 on an information instituted by himself, as Attorney 

 General, ng in~t two persons, one of whom sent, and 

 the other carried, a challenge. James was an enemy 

 to duels, but he wanted firmness for carrying the laws 

 against them into effect ; and therefore, in his reign, the 

 practice continued much the same as before, while his 

 successor was too much embarrassed with the cares of 

 government to be able to make any new regulations of 

 internal police. During the civil wars, the minds of 

 men were so much agitated with great events, that they 

 were less disposed to take up their time in adjusting 

 the ceremonies of a point of etiquette. We find", how- 

 ever, that in 1654, Cromwell's parliament passed an 

 ordinance for preventing and punishing duels. At the 

 Restoration, the attendants of Charles II. seem to have 

 brought back with them a great partiality for the duel, 

 and to have given way to all the licentiousness of pri- 

 vate combat. To check which, the king issued a pro- 

 clamation to enforce the laws against duelling ; but by 

 hi* laxity in pardoning offenders, he defeated the end 

 which his proclamation was intended to serve. The 

 practice therefore still maintained its ground, not from 

 the want of laws to check it, but because neither in the 

 reign of Charles, nor any of his successors, were the 

 laws put in execution. In the year 1713, a bill was 

 brought into the House of Commons for the purpose of 

 giving an effectual check to this bloody practice, but 

 it was lost upon a second reading. As the law stands, 

 a man is accounted guilty of murder, if he kill another 

 in a duel. Even fighting at all, when no mischief en- 

 sues, is punishable by fine and imprisonment, and 

 both the sender and receiver of a challenge are deemed 

 equally guilty. See Hawkin's Picas of the Cronn. 



In Scotland, duels were anciently permitted, not 

 only in criminal, but also in civil causes. Accordingly 

 duelling is mentioned in our law books, as one of t/ic 

 general faniit and mannerx nf probation used in courts. 

 But the Scottish legislature began to recede from this 

 savage jurisprudence, so early as the reign of Alexan- 

 der II. when it was ordained that, " in time coming, no 

 judgment or dome sail l>e done by water, or irn, as 

 has been used in all times." Single combat maintained 

 its ground sometime longer ; and, in the reign of Ro- 

 bert III. four things were necessary to render duelling 

 legal, 1st, That the crime should be capital. '2d, That 

 h should be certain the crime was committed. 3d, That 

 the accused should l>c rendered infamous by it. 4/A, 

 It must not be capable of proof by witnesses. Judicial 

 combat at length fell into total disuse, with the progres- 

 sive dawning of a more enlightened jurisprudence; and, 

 for ages, duelling has been no otherwise recognised 

 than as a heinous offence against morality and religion, 

 which it has been thought proper to restrain by the se- 

 vere-', sanctions. 



If the parties actually fight, and one of them be kil- 

 led, whatever may have been the provocation, or how- 

 lirly the parties may have conducted themselves, 

 this in murder, botfc by the law of Scotland and Eng- 



land ; for the circumstances of sudden provocation, Duel, 

 which lower the offence to the denomination of niun- s "- V*"' 

 daughter, are not understood, by the law of either 

 country, to apply to those w ho meet avowedly with an 

 intent to murder. 



Farther, the mere net of engaging in a duel, whether Mere art 

 the parties receive any woin.dor not, is made Capital <>I engaging 

 by the -.tatute KjOO, chap. xii. and the provoker is to in ducl 

 be punished by a more ignominiou- death than the C *P"*'' 

 other, at the pleasure of the sovereign. This statute 

 makes no mention of seconds ; but the subsequent one 

 of King William enacts, that whosoever, principal or 

 second, or oilier interposed per.Min, gives a challenge 

 to fight n duel or single combat, or whosotver accepts 

 the same : or whosoever, either principal or second, on 

 cither side, engages therein, albeit no lighting eiiMie, 

 shall be punished by the pain of banishment, and the 

 escheat of moveables, without prejudice to the act id- 

 ready made against the fighting of duels. Both these 

 statutes have lately been declared, by the Court of Jus- 

 ticiary, to be still in force. There have not, however, 

 been many prosecutions on this statute, which must 

 be allowed to be a rigorous law. And Mr Hume ob- 

 serves, he could not find in the records more than two 

 instances of a conviction upon it. 



This statute applies only to a serious proposal and 

 settlement of a combat. Ambiguous hints, or inuen- 

 dos, on the one hand, or on the other, mere verbajac- 

 lanlia, passionate words of defiance, uttered face to 

 face, and only tending to a challenge, are punished ar- 

 bitrarily at common law, but not by the statutory 

 pains. For example, in the course of a scuffle, one of 

 the persons engaged in it, besides other abuse, calling 

 to another of them to get a sword, and give him satis- 

 faction, was not found a relevant charge under this sta- 

 tute. 



Such is the history of duelling, and such the law re- nur iij n - 

 sperting it. Duelling is founded upon the principles j m , 

 of honour. These principles, when properly directed, nml b 

 exalt and adorn the character, and animate us in the 

 pursuit of what is noble and excellent. But, like all 

 the other principles of our nature, when not properly 

 directed, they are productive of the worst consequen- 

 ces. The object which the duellist proposes is altoge- 

 ther of a personal nature, being either to gratify some 

 passion, which every good man ought to restrain, or to 

 avoid the imputation of cowardice, of which, perhaps, 

 he was never suspected. His object therefore is sel- 

 fish ; and the means by which lie attains this object are 

 contrary to law, reason, and religion. He takes the 

 law, indeed, in his own hand, and acts as judge in his 

 own cause. On account of some unguarded word, or 

 some trifling offence, he wantonly risks his own life, 

 and involves, perhaps in wretchedness, a wife ;uid fa- 

 mily who depend upon him for subsistence. Religion 

 enjoins forgiveness of injuries, the duellist thinks only 

 of revenge. Religion recommends patience and for- 

 bearance, the duellist declares, that he who does not 

 resent his own wrongs, is not fit to live in society. Hu- 

 mility is a fundamental principle of the Christian reli- 

 gion, duelling is supported and nourished by pride : 

 lor honour, in the fashionable sense of the word, is 

 nothing else than pride modified by certain rules. 



Hence this practice has ever been reprobated by all SiJ 

 wise and good men. The Due de Sully, one of the testimony 

 first generals of his own or any other age, has trans- tfu>t '* 

 milled to posterity his testimony against it, in the fol- 

 lowing pointed language, " That," said he, " which 

 arms us against our friends or countrymen, in contempt 

 1 



