DUELLING. 



DUELLING. 



090 



proper obsolete laws are often allowed to encumber the English 

 statute-book, that the trial by battle in appeals of felony and writs of 

 right was only abolished in 1818. An appeal of felony had been 

 brought in the previous year, in a case of murder, and the appellee 

 had resorted to his right of demanding wager of battle (Ashford v. 

 Thornton, 1 Barn, and Aid. 405). The appeal was not proceeded with, 

 so that the barbarous encounter did not take place. [APPEAL.] 



The law of England makes no distinction between the killing of a 

 man in a duel and other species of murder : and the seconds of both 

 parties are also guilty of murder. But the practice of duelling has 

 been maintained against laws human and divine; and it may be 

 well to enter a little into the reasons of this practice, without reference 

 to its illegality, or to its variance, which no one will dispute, with 

 Christianity. 



The professed object of a duel is satisfaction. The affronter pro- 

 fesses to hare satisfied the man whom he has affronted, and the 

 challenger professes to have been satisfied by the man whom he has 

 challenged, after they have fired, or have had an opportunity of firing, 

 pistols at one another. That this satisfaction is of the nature of 

 reparation, is of course out of the question. Satisfaction in this its 

 most obvious sense, or reparation for an injury, cannot be effected by 

 the injured man firing at his injurer, and being fired at in return. 



The satisfaction furnished by a duel is of a different sort, and of a 

 sort which, were it distinctly comprehended, would at once show the 

 absurdity of the practice ; it is a satisfaction occasioned by the know- 

 ledge that, by standing fire, the challenger has shown his courage, and 

 that the world cannot call him coward. Now it is clear that there 

 would be no reason for dissatisfaction on this point, previous to the 

 fighting of the duel, and therefore no reason for seeking satisfaction of 

 this sort, were it not that the practice of duelling existed. Were men 

 not in the habit of fighting duels, and therefore not expected to expose 

 themselves to fire after having received an affront, there would be no 

 ground for calling their courage into question, and therefore no neces- 

 sity for satisfying themselves that the world thinks them courageous. 

 The practice of duelling thus causes the evil which it is called in to 

 remedy, the injury for which it is required to administer satisfaction. 

 And every one who saw this would immediately see the absurdity of 

 the practice. But the word satisfaction is conveniently ambiguous. 

 When one speaks of it, or hears it spoken of, one thinks of that satis- 

 faction which means reparation for an injury, and which is not 

 the satisfaction furnished by the duel. Thus are men the dupes of 

 words. 



The real object then of the duel is, in most cases, to satisfy the 

 person who provokes it, or who sends the challenge, that the world 

 does not suspect him of a want of courage ; and it will be useful to 

 observe, in passing, that the duel furnishes this sort of satisfaction as 

 well to the man who gave the affront, as to him who was affronted. 

 Its object also, in certain cases, is doubtless to gratify the vengeance of 

 the man who has received an affront. But in all cases the object 

 which is professed, or generally understood to be professed, of satis- 

 faction in the sense of reparation for the affront, is no more than a 

 pretence. 



But though the practice of duelling cannot effect the good of re- 

 pairing an injury, it may very possibly effect other sorts of good. The 

 advantage of the practice of duelling is generally said to consist in its 

 tendency to increase courtesy and refinement of manners ; as it will be 

 a reason for a man to abstain from giving an affront, that he will be 

 subjected in consequence to the fire of a pistol. 



Now it is clear in the first place, that all the affronts which are con- 

 stituted reasons or grounds of duels by fashion, or the law of honour 

 or public opinion, are so constituted because they are judged by 

 public opinion deserving of disapprobation. If then the practice of 

 duelling did not exist, public opinion, which now constitutes these 

 affronts grounds of a duel, as being deserving of disapprobation, would 

 still condemn them, and, condemning them, provide men with a 

 reason to abstain from them. Thus there would still exist a reason 

 to abstain, in all cases in which the practice of duelling now provides 

 a reason. But, in the second place, the practice of duelling itself 

 depends on public opinion alone. A man fights because public opinion 

 judges that he who in certain cases refuses to challenge or to accept 

 a challenge is deserving of disapprobation : he fights from fear of 

 public opinion. If he abstain from giving an affront on account of the 

 existence of the practice of duelling, it is because the fear of public 

 opinion would oblige him to fight; he abstains then from fear of 

 public opinion. Now we have seen that there would be the fear of 

 public opinion to deter him from the affronts which now lead to duels, 

 if the practice of duelling did not exist. Thus the practice of duelling 

 does not in any case provide a reason to abstain, which public opinion 

 would not provide without its aid. As a means then of increasing 

 courtesy and refinement of manners, the practice of duelling is unne- 

 cessary; and inasmuch as its tendency to polish manners is the only 

 advantage which can, with any show of probability, be ascribed to it, 

 there will be no good effects whatever to set against the evil effects 

 whictwwe now proceed to enumerate. There will be no difficulty in 

 striking the balance between good and evil. 



First, the practice of duelling is disadvantageous, inasmuch as it 

 often diminishes the motives to abstain from an affront. We have 

 seen that the existence of this practice leads public opinion to enjoy 



ARTS AMD Id. DIV. VOL. III. 



itself concerning the courage of the two persons, who (the one having 

 affronted and the other having been affronted) are in a situation in 

 which, according to custom or fashion, a duel takes place. Public 

 opinion then is diverted by the practice of duelling from the affront to 

 the extraneous consideration of the courage of the two parties. It 

 censures the man who has given the affront only if he shrinks from a 

 duel ; and even goes so far as to censure the man who has received 

 the affront for the same reason. Thus in a case where a man, reckless 

 of exposing his life, is disposed to give affronts, he is certain that he 

 can avert censure for an atl'ront by being ready to fight a duel ; and in 

 a case where a bold or reckless man is disposed to affront one who is 

 timid, or a man expert with the pistol one who is a bad shot, he can 

 reckon on the man whom he affronts refusing to fight, and on censure 

 being thus diverted from himself who has given an affront to him who 

 has shown want of courage. 



Secondly, the practice of duelling is disadvantageous, as increasing 

 the amount of injury which one man can do to another by an affront. 



Thirdly, the practice of duelling affords means for the gratification 

 of vengeance ; and thus tends to hurt the characters of individuals, by 

 the encouragement both of that feeling, and of hypocrisy in those 

 who, thirsting for vengeance, and daring not to own it, profess (in the 

 common ambiguous phrase) to be seeking for satisfaction. 



Fourthly (which is the most important consideration), there are the 

 evils entailed by the deaths which the practice of duelling brings 

 about evils entailed both on the persons dying, and on their surviving 

 relatives and friends. It is an evil that a man should be cut off from 

 life " unhouseled, uuappointed, unaneled." It is an evil that he should 

 be taken from relatives and friends to whom his life is, in different 

 ways and degrees, a source of happiness ; from parents who have 

 centred hi him their hopes, and to whom, in their declining years, he 

 might be a comfort, or from a wife and children who look to him for 

 support. 



Such are the evil effects of the practice of duelling ; and there being 

 no list of good effects to set against them, it follows immediately that 

 the tendency of the practice is, on the whole, evil. There arises, then, 

 the question, how is it to be got rid of ? 



Were a man who had killed his antagonist in a duel compelled by 

 the law to support, or assist in supporting, some of his surviving 

 relatives, this, so far as it would go, would be a punishment popular 

 and efficacious. Public opinion would then infallibly be against the 

 man who, having incurred the penalty, should endeavour to avoid it. 

 And such a punishment as this would furthermore be superior to the 

 punishment of death, as being susceptible of graduation as furnishing 

 reparation to a portion of those who have been most injured, and as 

 preserving the offender, that he may have all those opportunities, 

 which his natural life will afford him, of improving himself and of 

 benefiting others. 



A mild and judicious legislation would tend to guide and improve 

 public opinion ; whereas such a legislation as the present tends only to 

 confirm it in its evil ways. 



And as legislation may and should assist the formation of a right 

 public opinion, so is it possible and desirable to operate independently 

 on public opinion, either that the absence of good legislation may, as 

 far as is possible, be compensated for, or that good legislation may be 

 assisted. This operation on public opinion must be brought about by 

 the endeavours of individuals. It is the duty of each man to oppose 

 this practice to the utmost extent of his power, both by precept and 

 example, to abstain from challenging when he has received an affront, 

 and to refuse a challenge when he is considered to have given one, 

 making public in both cases, so far as his situation allows, his reasons 

 for the course which he takes, and thus producing an impression against 

 the practice as widely as he can. In the second of these two cases, he 

 must either be able to defend, or he must apologise for, that which was 

 considered an affront. If he can defend it, or show that the evil to 

 the person insulted was overbalanced by the good accruing to others, 

 he refuses rightly to be fired at for having been the author of a benefit ; 

 or, if unable to defend the affront, he apologises for it, he performs a 

 manly and a rational part in refusing to fire at a man whose feelings he 

 has wantonly injured. 



This duty is peculiarly incvimbent on public men, whose sphere of 

 influence is larger, and whose means of producing good effects by 

 example are therefore greater, than those of others. A public man 

 who should at all times refuse to challenge or to accept a challenge, 

 resting his refusal on the ground of the evil tendency of duelling, not 

 of the infraction of some other duty which an accident has in his case 

 connected with it (as the violation of an oath), and who should at the 

 same time preserve himself from suspicion or reproach by circumspec- 

 tion in speech, by a manly defence, where it is possible, and, where it is 

 not, by a manly apology, would be a mighty aid for the extirpation of 

 this practice. 



The following three new articles of war were issued in the course 

 of the year 1844, with a view to the abatement of duelling in the 

 army : 



1. Every officer who shall give or send a challenge, or who shall 

 accept any challenge to fight a duel with another officer, or who, being 

 privy to an intention to fight a duel, shall not take active measures to 

 prevent such duel, or who shall upbraid another for refusing or for not 

 giving a challenge, or who shall reject or advise the rejection, of :\ 



v v 



