DUEL. 



745 



liim to single combat, and required him to appoint 

 the time, place, and weapons. Charles accepted the 

 challenge ; but, after many messages concerning the 

 arrangements for the combat, accompanied with mu- 

 tual reproaches, bordering on the most indecent scur- 

 rility, all thoughts of the duel were given up. But 

 this affair, though it thus terminated without any 

 rencounter, is supposed to have had a great influence 

 in producing an important change in manners all over 

 Europe. Upon every insult or injury, which seemed 

 to touch his honour, a gentleman thought himself en- 

 titled to draw his sword, and to call on his adversary 

 to give him satisfaction. Such an opinion becoming 

 prevalent among men of fierce courage, of high spirit, 

 and rude manners, where offence was often given, 

 and revenge always prompt, led to the sacrifice of 

 many lives. The " detestable practice of duelling, 

 introduced," as the council of Trent say, " at the in- 

 stigation of the devil," raged with the greatest vio- 

 lence in France, where it is calculated that 6000 

 persons fell in duels, during ten years of 'the reign of 

 Henry IV. His celebrated minister, Sully, remon- 

 strated against the practice ; but the king connived 

 at it, supposing that it tended to maintain a military 

 spirit among his people. But afterwards, in 1602, 

 near the close of his reign, he issued a very severe 

 decree against it, and declared it to be punishable 

 with death. This decree was opposed by Sully, as 

 being so far beyond the sentiments of the people on 

 the subject, that it could not be carried into execu- 

 tion ; and experience proved the correctness of Sully's 

 opinion. Under Henry's successor, the cardinal Riche- 

 lieu introduced a law, that every person who should 

 fight a duel should lose his offices and pensions, a 

 third of his property, and be exiled for three years 

 from the kingdom. Duels soon decreased. Two 

 French noblemen were executed for this offence in 

 1627. In 1632, two noblemen killed each other in a 

 duel ; their corpses were hung upon the gallows, 

 with the legs uppermost. (Mercure. XIII., 450.) 

 Duels are not severely punished by the present French 

 code. " It must be admitted,'' says Mr Robertson, 

 in connexion with his account of the challenge be- 

 tween Charles and Francis, " that to this absurd cus- 

 tom we must ascribe, in some degree, the extraordi- 

 nary gentleness and complaisance of modern manners, 

 and that respectful attention of one man to another, 

 which, at present, render the social intercourses of 

 life far more agreeable and decent than among the 

 most civilized nations of antiquity." 



Duelling sprang up as a branch of the chivalrous 

 spirit of the middle ages ; and the remnant of that 

 spirit, which has survived to our own times, and 

 which makes an insult, or an injury to honour, insup- 

 portable, has preserved this custom, in opposition to 

 the exhortations and denunciations of the teachers of 

 religion, and the prohibitions and penalties of the 

 1 aws, which have been levelled against it in all civil- 

 ized countries. A duel provoked from a spirit of re- 

 venge and thirst of blood, shocks the moral sense, 

 and excites the horror of mankind, little less than a 

 cold-blooded assassination. But, where a man burns 

 with a sense of atrocious insult which no laws can 

 redress, and resorts to the duel, not from a spirit 

 of revenge, but as the only means supplied which he 

 considers to be left him for vindicating his honour, 

 although this remedy is ever so inadequate, and even 

 absurd, and although it is liable to so great abuse, 

 still, in such a case, the general sentiment, in spite 

 of all laws to the contrary, regards a challenge with 

 tolerance ; and it is these instances that sustain the 

 practice of duelling, and defeat, in a great degree, 

 the execution of the laws against duels. As far as 

 men are impelled to combat by these motives, as 

 Sully remarked to Henry IV., the threat of the pun- 



ishment of death, by the law, has feeble influence 

 with them ; since they expose their lives in the com- 

 bat itself, in order to avoid what they consider a 

 greater evil than death. This evil is one inflicted, in 

 many instances, by the public opinion, and depends on 

 the customs of particular societies. Thus, in France, 

 Spain, and Italy, a blow with the hand is a mortal 

 injury ; and that it is so is matter merely of public 

 opinion, for in England and America, this is by no 

 means so burning a disgrace. But, in both of the 

 latter countries, a stroke with a whip is, by the pui>- 

 lic opinion, rendered exceedingly galling. After 

 all, however, parties in the heat of resentment, and 

 the high excitement of their sensibilities, are apt 

 greatly to overrate the importance of the supposed 

 disparagement of their reputation ; and the frivolity 

 of the occasion would frequently make duels subjects 

 of ridicule, if they were not cases of life and death. 

 And, though the public are disposed to palliate them 

 in extreme cases, still the laws very properly prohibit 

 the practice of duelling, in toto. Accordingly, the 

 laws of England make killing in a duel, after time 

 for reflection and deliberation, murder. " A party," 

 says Mr Russell, in his treatise on crimes, "killing 

 another in a deliberate duel, is guilty of murder, and 

 cannot help himself by alleging that he was first 

 struck by the deceased ; or that he had often declined 

 to meet him, and was prevailed upon to do so by his 

 importunity; or that it was his intent only to vindi- 

 cate his reputation ; or that he meant not to kill, but 

 only to disarm his adversary. He has deliberately 

 engaged in an act highly unlawful, and he must 

 abide the consequences." Such is the law of Eng- 

 land, but it does not prevent duels ; and the parties 

 concerned in them often come off with impunity. 



" Some advocates for duelling," says Coke, ''al- 

 lege the combat of David and Goliath, in vindication 

 of the practice ;" and there are some other instances 

 on record, of single combats proposed, which Coke 

 looks upon in a more favourable light. He mentions 

 that Edward III., Jn the 16th year of his reign, pro- 

 posed a speedy trial of all right in controversy be- 

 tween him and the French king, by a personal com- 

 bat with his rival. And Richard II. of England, 

 having a controversy with the king of France, con- 

 cerning the title to the French crown, " it was," says 

 'Coke, "an honourable offer that Richard made to 

 Charles, the French king, for saving of guiltless 

 Christian blood, and to put an end to that bloody and 

 lingering war, through his uncle, the duke of Lan- 

 caster," that the war should be concluded, 1, by a 

 personal combat between themselves ; or, 2, between 

 themselves, with three of their uncles on each side ; 

 or, 3, by a general battle, at an appointed time and 

 place, between all the forces that they could respec- 

 tively muster. The duke of Lancaster, according to 

 his commission, made these offers to Charles, the 

 king of France, " but king Charles liked none of 

 their offers." In 1196, in the eighth year of the reign 

 of Richard I., Philip, king of France, sent this chal- 

 lenge to Richard I. of England, " that king Rich- 

 ard would choose five for his part, and the king of 

 France would choose five for his part, which might 

 fight in lists for trial of all matters in controversy 

 between them, for the avoiding of shedding of more 

 guiltless blood. Richard accepted the offer, with 

 the condition that either king might be of the niim 

 ber, but this condition would not be granted." 

 Cpon which Coke remarks, that "these and Un- 

 like offers, as they proceeded from high courage 

 and greatness of mind, so had they been lawful if 

 they had been warranted by public authority. To 

 take away all motive and excuse for the duel, Henry 

 IV. of France erected a court of honour, to try and 

 J (lininis'.er redress in those cases which are the usual 



